SynthesisBMJ open2025
Stakeholder perceived value of telehealth: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTelehealth has the potential to address challenges faced by the healthcare industry. To achieve the intended goals of telehealth programmes, stakeholders should engage with these services. Prior research demonstrates that perceived value influences stakeholder engagement in a system-based service. Therefore, this review aims to synthesise the value perceptions of telehealth stakeholders.
designThe review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Articles published between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2024 were identified through SCOPUS, PubMed and Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) digital library database search, and screening relevant article reference and citation lists. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Articles examining a single-specific telehealth application, proving evidence of post-use value by one or more stakeholder groups were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies. Information was recorded related to telehealth type, stakeholders, reported perceived value from the articles and codes were developed successively from specific perceived outcomes.
results140 articles were included in the review. The selected studies assessed various types of telehealth applications with a balanced representation of the types of care, telehealth modality and service. The stakeholders were patients and/or healthcare providers; the majority (82.85%) focusing on patients' view. The reported perceived value outcomes were diverse and categorised into six themes: access to care, care effectiveness and efficiency, quality of care, affective outcomes and human capital. None of the studies reported all these value dimensions and there wasn't a single value dimension reported by all studies.
conclusionThe review demonstrates the diversity and fragmentation in perceived value of telehealth. Within each theme, there were variances in how different stakeholders defined their meaning. These insights highlight the multi-dimensional and context-specific nature of perceived value. This comprehensive view of value can inform the design of telehealth programmes to motivate the engagement of all stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.