Cited by 1,735Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTechnology Use by Older AdultsHealthcare Systems and Technology

Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: A systematic review

Open access
Scott Kruse, Clemens, Karem, Priyanka, Shifflett, Kelli, Vegi, Lokesh, Ravi, Karuna, Brooks, Matthew·2018·Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Abstract

Introduction and objective: Studies on telemedicine have shown success in reducing the geographical and time obstacles incurred in the receipt of care in traditional modalities with the same or greater effectiveness; however, there are several barriers that need to be addressed in order for telemedicine technology to spread. The aim of this review is to evaluate barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide through the analysis of published work. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic literature review by extracting the data from the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PubMed (MEDLINE) research databases. The reviewers in this study analysed 30 articles (nine from CINAHL and 21 from Medline) and identified barriers found in the literature. This review followed the checklist from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009. The reviewers organized the results into one table and five figures that depict the data in different ways, organized by: barrier, country-specific barriers, organization-specific barriers, patient-specific barriers, and medical-staff and programmer-specific barriers. Results: The reviewers identified 33 barriers with a frequency of 100 occurrences through the 30 articles. The study identified the issues with technically challenged staff (11%), followed by resistance to change (8%), cost (8%), reimbursement (5%), age of patient (5%), and level of education of patient (5%). All other barriers occurred at or less than 4% of the time. Discussion and conclusions: Telemedicine is not yet ubiquitous, and barriers vary widely. The top barriers are technology-specific and could be overcome through training, change-management techniques, and alternating delivery by telemedicine and personal patient-to-provider interaction. The results of this study identify several barriers that could be eliminated by focused policy. Future work should evaluate policy to identify which one to lever to maximize the results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1357633x16674087

Cites

45 of 46 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a lack of guidance for use of both synchronous and asynchronous telemedicine, making confidentiality a concern.

    “Consistencies with synchronous telemedicine include providing time and cost savings for patients, 51–53 and evidence suggesting a lack of guidance for use of both makes confidentiality a concern. 14,54”

    From Effectiveness and safety of asynchronous telemedicine consultations in general practice: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Results (page unavailable) identify confidentiality and privacy as telemedicine adoption barriers, including risks from unsecured networks and unencrypted hardware. They do not say that a lack of guidance for synchronous and asynchronous telemedicine causes those concerns. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of digital health services.

    “The pandemic has accelerated the adoption of digital health services.”

    From Acceptance and perceived usefulness of digital health services in the management of chronic urticaria: a survey of patients and physicians (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Introduction (Rationale; page unavailable) discusses barriers that slow telemedicine adoption, and the Discussion (Concise summary of main findings; page unavailable) discusses its uses and potential benefits. Neither addresses COVID-19 or a pandemic-driven acceleration in digital health adoption; searches for those terms found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Little is currently known about how to successfully spread and scale up video consulting for sustained use across settings.

    “Little is currently known about how to successfully spread and scale up video consulting for sustained use across settings [23-25].”
  • There was a gap in the reviewed papers on the relevance of interorganizational networking for supporting and sustaining the spread and scale-up of video consulting.

    “There was a gap in the papers reviewed, on the relevance of interorganizational networking for supporting and sustaining the spread and scale-up of video consulting [24].”
  • The same things that interfere with implementation at one site are also seen as interfering with spread and scale-up, although this may be an artifact of how spread is commonly studied as the sum of multiple implementations.

    “They also indicate that the same things that interfere with implementation at one site [eg, 48] are also seen as interfering with spread and scale-up [5,7,17,24], although this may be an artifact of how spread is commonly studied as the sum of multiple implementations.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott Kruse, C., Karem, P., Shifflett, K., Vegi, L., Ravi, K., & Brooks, M.
Affiliations
  • Texas State University, Texas, USA
  • Texas State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Published
2016-10-16
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
4-12
ISSN
  • 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1109
OpenAlex
W2532031923
Cited by
1,735
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 147 · 2025: 221 · 2024: 210 · 2023: 277 · 2022: 323 · 2021: 304 · 2020: 183 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
telemedicine, barriers to adoption, technology adoption, resistance to change, employee training, cost, reimbursement, patient age, patient education, change management, health policy
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Attitude of Health Personnel, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Socioeconomic Factors, Global Health, Telemedicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review