An Overview and Analysis of Theories Employed in Telemedicine Studies

D. Gammon; L. K. Johannessen; T. Sørensen; R. Wynn; P. Whitten

doi:10.3414/ME0484

Methods of Information in Medicine, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Methods Inf Med 2008; 47(03): 1-10
DOI: 10.3414/ME0484

Original Article

Schattauer GmbH

An Overview and Analysis of Theories Employed in Telemedicine Studies

A Field in Search of an Identity

Autor*innen

D. Gammon

¹Norwegian Centre for Telemedicine, Tromsø, Norway

²Department of Clinical Psychiatry, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway
L. K. Johannessen

¹Norwegian Centre for Telemedicine, Tromsø, Norway
T. Sørensen

¹Norwegian Centre for Telemedicine, Tromsø, Norway
R. Wynn

³Department of Telemedicine and e-health, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø and Department of Specialised Psychiatric Services, University Hospital of Northern Norway, Tromsø, Norway
P. Whitten

⁴College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Summary

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: This study asks: What theories are employed in telemedicine studies? How might they be categorized in ways that help distinguish the knowledge base of telemedicine?

Methods: Theories in use were identified from a database of telemedicine-related publications between 1990 and 2005. Eighty-three (5% of 1615) articles referred to a theoretical concept. Grounded Theory procedures were used to analyze and categorize theories, while descriptive statistics were used for supplementary information.

Results: The proportion of studies with theory was 3% in 1999 and 7% in 2005. The 83 articles were dispersed among 48 of the in total 795 different journals in the original sample. Identified theories were grouped into two main categories; ‘shared’ (used in two or more studies) and ‘lone ranger’. All of the shared theories are social science theories employed without notable adjustments to any uniquely defining features of telemedicine; diffusion, technology acceptance, health behavior, science and technology studies (STS), and economics. Theoretical concepts within the lone ranger category may well address unique features of telemedicine, but have yet to attract the attention of colleagues.

Conclusion: The theories identified as ‘shared’ play an important role, but are inadequate in illuminating any unique features of telemedicine. The future of telemedicine as a field will need to identify its underlying theo - retical components. Frameworks employed in the field of evaluation may aid in identifying the types of theo - ries worth articulating in telemedicine.

Keywords

Telemedicine - ehealth - theory - evaluation - review

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Agha Z. Schapira, Maker. Cost effectiveness of telemedicine for the delivery of outpatient pulmonary care to a rural population. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2002; 8 (03) 281-291.
2 Al-Qirim N. Teledermatology: The case of adoption and diffusion of telemedicine Health Waikato in New Zealand. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health 2003; SUM; 9 (02) 167-177.
3 Ammenwerth E, Ehlers F, Eichstadter, Haux R. Pohl, Resch. Systems analysis in health care: framework and example. Methods Inf Med 2002; 4 (02) 134-140.
4 Ammenwerth E. Iller, Mansmann. Can evaluation studies benefit from triangulation? A case study. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2003; 70 2-3 237-248.
5 Aoki N. Dunn, Fukui, Beck, Schull, Li. Costeffectiveness analysis of telemedicine to evaluate diabetic retinopathy in a prison population. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 (05) 1095-1101.
6 Artinian NT. Washington, Templin. Effects of home telemonitoring and community-based monitoring on blood pressure control in urban African Americans: a pilot study. Heart & Lung: Journal of Acute & Critical Care. 2001; 30 (03) 191-199.
7 Ash J. Gorman, Lavelle, Stavri, Lyman, Fournier, Carpenter. Perceptions of physician order entry: results of a cross-site qualitative study. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (04) 313-323.
8 Balka E. Kahnamoui. Cases and experiences: Technology trouble?. talk to us: findings from an ethnographic field study. Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices – Volume 1.
9 Bardram J. Bossen, Thomsen. Designing for transformations in collaboration: a study of the deployment of homecare technology. November 2005. Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work. GROUP ’05 Publisher: ACM Press;
10 Bareiss W. Telemedicine in South Dakota: A cultural studies approach. New Media & Society. 2001; 3 (03) 327-355.
11 Berman M. Fenaughtly. Technology and managed care: patients benefits of telemedicine in a rural health care network. Health Economics 2004; 14 (06) 559-573.
12 Bradford WD. Kleit, Krousel-Wood, Re. Testing efficacy with detection controlled estimation: An application to telemedicine. Health Economics 2001; 10 (06) 553-564.
13 Brownrigg P. Lowry, Edmondson, Langton. Telemedicine in Oral Surgery and Maxillofacial Trauma: A Descriptive Account. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2004; 10 (01) 27-31.
14 Buurke JH. Kleissen, Nene, Bloo, Renzenbrink, Zeegers, Doederlein, Hermens. A feasibility study of remote consultation to determine suitability for surgery in stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2004; 10 (02) 108-112.
15 Chau PYK. Hu. Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems 2002; 18 (04) 191-229.
16 Chumbler NR. Vogel, Garel, Qin, Kobb, Ryan. Health services utilization of a care coordination/ home-telehealth program for veterans with diabetes: a matched-cohort study. J Ambul Care Manage 2005; 28 (03) 230-240.
17 Collie K. Cubranic. An art therapy solution to a telehealth problem. Art Therapy 1999; 16 (04) 186-193.
18 de la Torre A. Hernandez-Rodriguez, Garcia. Cost analysis in telemedicine: empirical evidence from sites in Arizona. Journal of Rural Health 2004; 20 (03) 253-257.
19 de Lusignan S. Singleton, Wells. Lessons from the implementation of a near patient anticoagulant monitoring service in primary care. Inform Prim Care 2004; 12 (01) 27-33.
20 Demiris G, Oliver DR. Fleming, Edison. Hospice staff attitudes towards telehospice. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2004; 6 (05) 278-284.
21 Demiris G. Speedie, Finkelstein. A questionnaire for the assessment of patients’ impressions of the risks and benefits of home telecare. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care 2000; 21 (05) 343-347.
22 Dobscha SK. Corson, Solodky, Gerrity. Use of VC for depression research. Telemedicine and e-Health 2005; 11 (01) 84-89.
23 Etter JF. Comparing the Efficacy of Two Internet- Based, Computer-Tailored Smoking Cessation Programs: A Randomized Trial. J Med Internet Res 2005; 7 (01) e2.
24 Farand L. Lafrance, Arocha. Collaborative problem- solving in telemedicine and evidence interpretation in a complex clinical case. International Journal of Medical Informatics 1998; 51 2-3 153-167.
25 Flicker S. Goldberg, Read,et al. HIV-Positive youth’s perspectives on the Internet and eHealth. J of Medical Internet Research 2004; 6 (03) 77-90.
26 Gagnon M-P, Lamothe, Fortin, Cloutier A. Telehealth adoption in hospitals: An organisational perspective. J of Health Org and Management 2005; 19 (01) 32-56.
27 Gagnon MP. Cloutier, Fortin. Quebec population and telehealth: a survey on knowledge and perceptions. Telemed J E-Health 2004; 10 (01) 3-12.
28 Glykas M. Chytas. Next generation of methods and tools for team work based care in speech and language therapy. Telematics and Informatics 2005; 22 (03) 135-160.
29 Gomez EJ. Caballero, Malpica, del Pozo. Optimization and evaluation of an asynchronous transfer mode teleradiology cooperative system: The experience of the EMERALD and the BONAPARTE projects. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2001; 64 (03) 201-214.
30 Goulis DG. Giaglis, Boren, Lekka, Bontis, Balas, Maglaveras, Avramides. Effectiveness of homecentered care through telemedicine applications for overweight and obese patients: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 2004; 28 (11) 1391-1398.
31 Grigsby J. Rigby, Hiemstra, House, Olsson, Whitten. The diffusion of telemedicine. Telemed J E-Health 2002; 8 (01) 79-94.
32 Hanseth O. Aanestad. Design as bootstrapping. On the evolution of ICT networks in health care. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (04) 385-391.
33 Hebert MA. Korabek. Stakeholder Readiness for Telehomecare: Implications for Implementation. Telemed J and e-Health 2004; 10 (01) 85-92.
34 Helitzer D. Heath, Maltrud, Sullivan, Alverson. Assessing or Predicting Adoption of Telehealth Using the Diffusion of Innovations Theory: A Practical Example from a Rural Program in New Mexico. Telemed J E-Health 2003; 9 (02) 179-187.
35 Hernando ME. Garcia, Gomez, del Pozo. Intelligent alarms integrated in a multi-agent architecture for diabetes management. Transactions Institute of Measurement & Control 2004; 26 (03) 185-200.
36 Hu PJ. Chau. Physician acceptance of telemedicine technology: an empirical investigation. Topics in Health Inf Manage 1999; 19 (04) 20-35.
37 Hutarew G. Moser, Dietze. Comparison of an auto-stereoscopic display and polarized stereoscopic projection for macroscopic pathology. J Telemed Telecare 2004; 10 (04) 206-213.
38 Idema RN. Gelsema, Wenting, Grashuis, van den Meiracker, Brouwer, Man in ’t Veld. A new model for diurnal blood pressure profiling. Square wave fit compared with conventional methods. Hypertension 1992; 19 (06) 595-605.
39 Johnston K. Kennedy, Murdoch, Taylor, Cook. The cost-effectiveness of technology transfer using telemedicine. Health Policy and Planning 2004; 19 (05) 302-309.
40 Johnstone B. Nossaman, Schopp, Holmquist, Rupright. Distribution of services and supports for people with traumatic brain injury in rural and urban Missouri. J Rural Health 2002; 18 (01) 109-117.
41 Kaplan B. Farzanfar, Friedman. Personal relationships with an intelligent interactive telephone health behavior advisor system: a multimethod study using surveys and ethnographic interviews. Int J of Medical Informatics 2003; 71 (01) 33-41.
42 Kaufman DR. Patel, Hilliman, Morin, Pevzner, Weinstock, Goland, Shea, Starren. Usability in the real world: assessing medical information technologies in patients’ homes. J Biomed Inform 2003; 36 1-2 45-60.
43 Khatri A. Rine, Khatri. Software reuse reference model approach in developing an Automated Medical Information System (AMIS) for improving health care practice. Headache 2003; 43 (07) 790-793.
44 Lam DM. Mackenzie. Human and Organizational Factors Affecting Telemedicine Utilization within U.S. Military Forces in Europe. Telemed J E-Health 2005; 11 (01) 70-78.
45 Lathan CE. Kinsella, Rosen, Winters, Trepagnier. Aspects of Human Factors Engineering in Home Telemedicine and Telerehabilitation Systems. Telemed J E-Health 1999; 5 (02) 169-175.
46 Lee CC. Liang, OuYang. E-healthcare in Taiwan. Int J of Healthcare Technology and Management 2002; 4 1-2 1-14.
47 Lehoux P. Sicotte, Denis, Berg, Lacroix. The theory of use behind telemedicine: How compatible with physicians’ clinical routines?. Social Science and Medicine 2002; 54 (06) 889-904.
48 Leonard S. The development and evaluation of a telepsychiatry service for prisoners. J of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing 2004; 11 (04) 461-468.
49 LeRouge C. Hevner. It’s more than just use: an investigation of telemedicine use quality. Presented at the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences: HICSS’05, Publisher: IEEE Computer Society Press; Piscataway, NJ:
50 Loh PK. Ramesh, Maher, Saligar, Flicker, Gold - swain. Can patients with dementia be assessed at a distance? The use of Telehealth and standardised assessments. Internal Med J 2004; 34 (05) 239-242.
51 Magaletta PR. Fagan, Peyrot. Telehealth in the federal bureau of prisons: Inmates’ perceptions. Professional Psychology-Res and Practice 2000; 31 (05) 497-502.
52 Maglogiannis I. Zafiropoulos, Platis, Lambinoudakis. Risk analysis of a patient monitoring system using Bayesian Network modeling. J Biomed Inform 2006; 39 (06) 637-647.
53 Mahoney DF. Tarlow, Jones, Sandaire Effects of a multimedia project on users’ knowledge about normal forgetting and serious memory loss. J Amer Med Informatics Assoc. 2001 Suppl S 154-162.
54 Maij E. van Reijswoud, Toussaint, Harms, Zwetsloot-Schonk. A process view of medical practice by modeling communicative acts. Methods Inf Med 2000; 39 (01) 56-62.
55 May C. Ellis. When protocols fail: Technical evaluation, biomedical knowledge, and the social production of ‘facts’ about a telemedicine clinic. Social Science and Medicine 2001; 53 (08) 989-1002.
56 May C. Harrison, Finch, MacFarlane, Mair, Wallace. Understanding the normalization of telemedicine services through qualitative evaluation. J Amer Med Informatics Assoc 2003; 10: 596-604.
57 McIntosh WA. Alston, Booher, Sykes, Segura. Predictors of Use of Telemedicine for Differing Medical Conditions. Res in the Soc of Health Care 2000; 17: 199-213.
58 Menachemi N. Burke, Ayers. Factors affecting the adoption of telemedicine – a multiple adopter perspective. J Med Syst 2004; 28 (06) 617-632.
59 Miller EA. Nelson. Modifying the Roter Interaction Analysis System to Study Provider Patient Communication in Telemedicine: Promises, Pitfalls, Insights, and Recommendations. Telemed and e-Health 2005; 11 (01) 44-55.
60 Nelson E. Barnard, Cain. Treating Childhood Depression over Videoconferencing. Telemed J E-Health 2003; 9 (01) 49-55.
61 Nelson EL. Cook, Shaw, Peacock, Doolittle. Evolving pediatrician perceptions of a telemedicine program. J of Computer-Mediated Commun 2001; 6 (01) 14p.
62 Nelson EL. Spaulding. Adapting the Roter interaction analysis system for telemedicine: lessons from four specialty clinics. J Telemed Telecare 2005; 11 (01) 105-107.
63 Nguyen HQ, Carrieri-Kohlman, Rankin, Slaughter R. Stulbarg. Supporting cardiac recovery through eHealth technology. J Cardio - vascular Nursing 2004; 19 (03) 201-208.
64 Obstfelder A. Social dilemmas in a telemedicine network: experience with the implementation of the Norwegian Pathology Network. J Telemed Telecare 2003; 9 (01) S29-30.
65 Oliver DRP. Demiris, Porock. The usability of videophones for seniors and hospice providers: a brief report of two studies. Computers in biology and medicine 2005; 35 (09) 782-790.
66 Paul DL. McDaniel Jr. A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly. 2004; 28 (02) 183-122.
67 Prado M. Roa, Reina-Tosina, Palma, Milán. Renal Telehealthcare System Based on a Patient Physiological Image: A Novel Hybrid Approach in Telemedicine. Telemed J E-Health 2003; 9 (02) 149-165.
68 Rodger J. Mills, Pendharkar, Khosrowpour. Mobile e-Medicine: Reengineering, telemedicine and the art of war. J Informa Techn Cases and Applications 2001; 3 (03) 35-56.
69 Shegog R. Bartholomew, Parcel, Sockrider, Masse, Abramson. Impact of a computer-assisted education program on factors related to asthma self-management behavior. J Amer Med Informatics Assoc 2001; 8 (01) 49-61.
70 Tachakra S. Depth perception in telemedical consultations. Telemed J E-Health 2001; 7 (02) 77-85.
71 Turner JW. Thomas, Reinsch Jr. Willingness to try a new communication technology: perceptual factors and task situations in a health care context. J Business Commun 2004; 41 (01) 5-26.
72 Valero MA. Arredondo, del Nogal, Gallar, Insausti, Del Pozo. Modelling home televisiting services using systems dynamic theory. J Telemed Telecare 2001; 7: S65-S67.
73 Varela JR. Pablo, Tahoces, Juan. A Compression and Transmission Scheme of Computer Tomography Images for Telemedicine Based on JPEG2000. Telemed J E-Health 2004; 10 (02) 40-44.
74 Virone G. Noury, Demongeot. A system for automatic measurement of circadian activity deviations in telemedicine. IEEE Transactions on Biomed Engineer 2002; 49 12 pt 2 1463-1469.
75 Wang J, Naghdy G. Three novel lossless image compression schemes for medical image archiv - ing and telemedicine. Telemed J 2000; 6 (02) 251-260.
76 Watts LA, Monk AF. Telemedicine. What happens in remote consultation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15 (01) 220-235.
77 Weaver RR. Informatics tools and medical communication: Patient perspectives of “knowledge coupling” in primary care. Health-Communication 2002; 15 (01) 59-78.
78 Weerakkody G. Ray. CSCW-based System Development Methodology for Health-Care Information Systems. Telemed J E-Health 2003; 9 (03) 273-282.
79 Werner P. Willingness to Use Telemedicine for Psychiatric Care. Telemed J E-Health 2004; 10 (03) 286-293.
80 Werner P. Karnieli. A model of the willingness to use telemedicine for routine and specialized care. J Telemed Telecare 2003; 9 (05) 264-272.
81 White MA. Martin, Newton, et al. Mediators of weight loss in a family-based intervention pre - sented over the Internet. Obesity Research. 2004; 12 (07) 1050-1059.
82 Wilson EV. Lankton. Modeling patients’ acceptance of provider-delivered e-health. J Amer Med Informatics Assoc 2004; 11 (04) 241-248.
83 Zincone LH. Doty, Balch. Financial analysis of telemedicine in a prison system. Telemed J E-Health 1997; 3 (04) 247-256.