Cited by 30Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTechnology Use by Older AdultsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Delivering patient education by group videoconferencing into the home: Lessons learnt from the Telehealth Literacy Project

Open access
Banbury, Annie, Parkinson, Lynne, Nancarrow, Susan, Dart, Jared, Gray, Leonard C, Buckley, Jennene·2016·Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Abstract

We examined the procedures for implementing group videoconference (VC) education for older people delivered into the home environment to identify the most common themes affecting the optimum delivery of VC home-based groups to older people. Participants ( n = 52) were involved in a six-week group VC patient education program. There were a total of 44 sessions, undertaken by nine groups, with an average of four participants (range 1–7) and the facilitator. Participants could see and hear each other in real-time whilst in their homes with customised tablets or a desktop computer. The data presented here are based on a program log maintained by the facilitator throughout the implementation phase of the project and post intervention. The VC group experience is influenced by factors including the VC device location, connection processes, meeting times, use of visual aids and test calls. Social presence can be improved by communication protocols and strategies. Robust information technology (IT) support is essential in mitigating technical problems to enhance users’ experience. Group patient education can be delivered by VC into homes of older people. However, careful pre-program planning, training and support should be considered when implementing such programs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1357633x16674359

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Banbury, A., Parkinson, L., Nancarrow, S., Dart, J., Gray, L. C., & Buckley, J.
Affiliations
  • Central Queensland University (AU)
  • Southern Cross University (AU)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • Centre for Online Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • Feros Care Ltd, Coolangatta, Queensland, Australia
Corresponding author
Banbury, Annie
Venue
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Published
2016-10-30
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
483-488
ISSN
  • 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1109
OpenAlex
W2539868930
Cited by
30
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Acquire (CQUniversity) (submittedVersion)
  • Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) (submittedVersion)
  • e-publications@bond (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University Health Network
  • Queensland Health
  • Australian Government
  • Central Queensland University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
older adults, social presence, technical support, visual aids, communication protocols, tablets
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Telemedicine, Videoconferencing, Health Literacy

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