Assessment of Telemedicine Perceptions, Usability, and Implementation Barriers Among Physicians in Kazakhstan Using the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire-Model for Assessment of Telemedicine-Kazakhstan Version (TUQ-MAST-KZ) Questionnaire: Pilot Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Background: Health care professionals' perceptions of telemedicine, its usability, and the presence of organizational barriers are important determinants of the successful implementation of digital solutions in health care. In Kazakhstan, the use of international assessment instruments requires contextual adaptation. The Telehealth Usability Questionnaire-Model for Assessment of Telemedicine-Kazakhstan version (TUQ-MAST-KZ) questionnaire was previously developed and psychometrically validated by integrating elements of the TUQ and MAST frameworks to assess perceptions of telemedicine within the national context. Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct the first pilot application of the TUQ-MAST-KZ questionnaire with physicians in Kazakhstan and perform an initial assessment of the organizational, technical, and educational aspects of telemedicine implementation. Methods: This cross-sectional study involved an anonymous online survey using the TUQ-MAST-KZ questionnaire, which covers perceptions of telemedicine, formats of use, platform usability, communication-related aspects, telemonitoring, organizational conditions, and implementation barriers. Responses from 156 physicians were analyzed. Stratified nonparametric comparisons were performed by sex, age group, work experience (years), and workplace, adjusted for multiple comparisons. Results: The most used telemedicine formats were telephone consultations (78/156, 50%), video consultations (69/156, 44.2%), chats and messaging applications (57/156, 36.5%), and mobile apps (48/156, 30.8%). The Kazakhstan National Telemedicine Network was used by 14.7% (23/156). Wearable devices were used by 5.8% (9/156). Telemedicine technologies incorporating artificial intelligence elements were used regularly by 13.5% (21/156) and occasionally by 32.1% (50/156) and not used by 50.6% (79/156). Positive ratings were as follows: 48.7% (76/156) regarding the simplicity and intuitiveness of telemedicine platforms; 56.4% (88/156) regarding the timeliness of patient condition monitoring; 51.9% (81/156) regarding the effectiveness of telemedicine for the management of patients with chronic diseases. The potential usefulness of telemonitoring for earlier detection of deterioration of a patient's condition was rated as fairly or very high by 48.7% (76/156); 41% (64/156) rated it as moderate. Only 35.9% (56/156) positively rated the connection's reliability and stability. Regarding the accuracy of wearable device data transmission, 57.1% (89/156) responded neutrally, potentially indicating ambiguity in perception, limited personal experience, or difficulty evaluating this aspect. Readiness to recommend telemonitoring at the national level was more often rated as moderate, high, or very high (78/156, 50%; 42/156, 26.9%; 14/156, 9%, respectively). Conclusions: This pilot application of the TUQ-MAST-KZ questionnaire showed a generally moderately positive perception of telemedicine by physicians, who recognized its potential clinical and organizational value. However, we identified substantial technical and institutional barriers, including connection instability, concerns about the accuracy of data transmission, insufficient process formalization, and a need for additional training. These preliminary findings should be interpreted in light of the pilot study design; however, they may serve to inform future larger-scale research and the development of organizational measures related to physician training, protocol standardization, and infrastructure support for telemedicine implementation.