IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v35y2018i1p90-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Paradoxes of Telehealth: a Review of the Literature 2000–2015

Author

Listed:
  • Craig Standing
  • Susan Standing
  • Marie†Louise McDermott
  • Raj Gururajan
  • Reza Kiani Mavi

Abstract

Telehealth literature has grown over the years to be a substantial body of work. However, research still highlights problems in extracting value from telehealth activities. In this paper, we analyse the telehealth literature over the period 2000–2015. The methodology focuses on paradoxes or surprises in the findings. We explain the lack of an operating model for telehealth as a debilitating feature of its history. We also note that many of the barriers cited in the literature have not changed over the period. We call for a focused research agenda on telehealth that provides clear evidence for some of the benefits such as cost savings and patient benefits. If telehealth activities are to progress, fundamental issues need to be addressed both in research and practice. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig Standing & Susan Standing & Marie†Louise McDermott & Raj Gururajan & Reza Kiani Mavi, 2018. "The Paradoxes of Telehealth: a Review of the Literature 2000–2015," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 90-101, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:35:y:2018:i:1:p:90-101
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2442
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2442?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:35:y:2018:i:1:p:90-101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.