Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26818611›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

Trust in telemedicine portals for rehabilitation care: an exploratory focus group study with patients and healthcare professionals.

Lex Van Velsen, Sabine Wildevuur, Ina Flierman, Boris Van Schooten, Monique Tabak, Hermie Hermens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Telemedicine in clinical setting.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lex Van VelsenTelemedicine group, Roessingh Research and Development, P.O. box 310, 7500AH, Enschede, The Netherlands. l.vanvelsen@rrd.nl.
Sabine WildevuurWaag Society, Sint Antoniesbreestraat 69, 1011HB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. sabine@waag.org.
Ina FliermanRoessingh Center for Rehabilitation, P.O. box 310, 7500AH, Enschede, The Netherlands. i.flierman@roessingh.nl.
Boris Van SchootenTelemedicine group, Roessingh Research and Development, P.O. box 310, 7500AH, Enschede, The Netherlands. b.vanschooten@rrd.nl.
Monique TabakTelemedicine group, Roessingh Research and Development, P.O. box 310, 7500AH, Enschede, The Netherlands. m.tabak@rrd.nl.
Hermie HermensTelemedicine group, Roessingh Research and Development, P.O. box 310, 7500AH, Enschede, The Netherlands. h.hermens@rrd.nl.
Roessingh Research and Development · NLWaag Futurelab · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor many eServices, end-user trust is a crucial prerequisite for use. Within the context of Telemedicine, the role of trust has hardly ever been studied. In this study, we explored what determines trust in portals that facilitate rehabilitation therapy, both from the perspective of the patient and the healthcare professional.

methodsWe held two focus groups with patients (total n = 15) and two with healthcare professionals (total n = 13) in which we discussed when trust matters, what makes up trust in a rehabilitation portal, what effect specific design cues have, and how much the participants trust the use of activity sensor data for informing treatment.

resultsTrust in a rehabilitation portal is the sum of trust in different factors. These factors and what makes up these factors differ for patients and healthcare professionals. For example, trust in technology is made up, for patients, mostly by a perceived level of control and privacy, while for healthcare professionals, a larger and different set of issues play a role, including technical reliability and a transparent data storage policy. Healthcare professionals distrust activity sensor data for informing patient treatment, as they think that sensors are unable to record the whole range of movements that patients make (e.g., walking and ironing clothes).

conclusionsThe set of factors that affect trust in a rehabilitation portal are different from the sets that have been found for other contexts, like eCommerce. Trust in telemedicine technology should be studied as a separate subject to inform the design of reliable interventions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAgedFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRehabilitationTelemedicineTrust

Identifiers

PMID26818611
PMCPMC4728819
OpenAlexW2274580781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.