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

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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

Figures

Figure 1. Literature search with inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Figure 1. Literature search with inclusion and exclusion criteria.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Frequency of barriers by country. This figure graphically organizes the barriers listed for each country in order of frequency from the literature. The authors categorized these by country or continent. The numbers in each bar correspond to the reference number of the article which also aligns with the order in the References section. A preponderance of the literature stems from the USA (40%), followed by Europe (33%), Australia (10%), Africa (9%), the Middle East (6%), and India (3%).
Figure 2. Frequency of barriers by country. This figure graphically organizes the barriers listed for each country in order of frequency from the literature. The authors categorized these by country or continent. The numbers in each bar correspond to the reference number of the article which also aligns with the order in the References section. A preponderance of the literature stems from the USA (40%), followed by Europe (33%), Australia (10%), Africa (9%), the Middle East (6%), and India (3%).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Frequency of barriers for organizations. This figure graphically organizes the barriers listed in order of frequency. The authors categorized these as organizational barriers to the adoption of telemedicine. The numbers in each bar correspond to the reference number of the article which also aligns with the order in the References section
Figure 3. Frequency of barriers for organizations. This figure graphically organizes the barriers listed in order of frequency. The authors categorized these as organizational barriers to the adoption of telemedicine. The numbers in each bar correspond to the reference number of the article which also aligns with the order in the References sectionCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Frequency of barriers for patients. This figure graphically organizes the barriers listed in order of frequency. The authors categorized these as patient barriers to the adoption of telemedicine. The numbers in each bar correspond to the reference number of the article which also aligns with the order in the References section.
Figure 4. Frequency of barriers for patients. This figure graphically organizes the barriers listed in order of frequency. The authors categorized these as patient barriers to the adoption of telemedicine. The numbers in each bar correspond to the reference number of the article which also aligns with the order in the References section.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Frequency of barriers for staff and programmers. This figure graphically organizes the barriers listed in order of frequency. The authors categorized these as staff and programmer barriers to the adoption of telemedicine. The programmer barriers are the last three on the right. The numbers in each bar correspond to the reference number of the article which also aligns with the order in the References section.
Figure 5. Frequency of barriers for staff and programmers. This figure graphically organizes the barriers listed in order of frequency. The authors categorized these as staff and programmer barriers to the adoption of telemedicine. The programmer barriers are the last three on the right. The numbers in each bar correspond to the reference number of the article which also aligns with the order in the References section.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. World Health Organization (WHO), 2010, Telemedicine: opportunities and developments in Member States: report on the second global survey on eHealth
  2. Plaete J, 2014, European Health Psychologist, 16, 889
  3. Stroetmann KA, 2011, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2011, 1347
  4. Schwarz F, 2014, Rural Remote Health, 14, 2871
  5. Medhanyie AA, 2015, Hum Resour Health, 13, 1
  6. El-Mahalli AA, 2012, Perspect Health Inf Manag, 9

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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