Telemedicine adoption in Ecuador: an assessment of physician perceptions and knowledge towards its benefits and limitations

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Telemedicine (TM) is a growing field with the potential to improve healthcare delivery; however, it is important for proper implementation to understand how physicians perceive the benefits and limitations related to their use. With this study, our aim is to assess the perceptions and knowledge of TM among a sample of Ecuadorian healthcare providers. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey-based study where participants answered a 12-item survey assessing their knowledge and perceptions towards TM. Demographic variables were analyzed applying descriptive statistics, and a chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used to assess the observed frequencies of each of the survey’s queries. Multiple linear regression was performed to evaluate predictors of overall attitude regarding TM. Results: In total, 382 participants completed the survey with an average age of 51.3 years [standard deviation (SD) 11.4]. Around half of the participants expressed low to very low familiarity with TM technology [χ2 (4) =88.497, P<0.001]. Most of them considered to a high extent that TM is effective in reducing costs of patient care in hospitals [32.5%; n=124; χ2 (4) =78.812, P<0.001]. Finally, 8 out of 10 participants expressed that a framework should be created to prevent breaches of data confidentiality when using TM [χ2 (4) =250.749, P<0.001]. Conclusions: In this study, we identified a significant proportion of physicians who reported limited familiarity with TM, despite recognizing its potential benefits for patient care. Concerns regarding data confidentiality breaches and the risk of malpractice were highlighted as primary issues necessitating a framework to mitigate these risks. Future research is required to address the perceived technological barriers to ensure the safe and efficient implementation of TM in healthcare settings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.