IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0139561.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Contradictions of Telehealth User Experience in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Brunton
  • Peter Bower
  • Caroline Sanders

Abstract

Objective: As the global burden of chronic disease rises, policy makers are showing a strong interest in adopting telehealth technologies for use in long term condition management, including COPD. However, there remain barriers to its implementation and sustained use. To date, there has been limited qualitative investigation into how users (both patients/carers and staff) perceive and experience the technology. We aimed to systematically review and synthesise the findings from qualitative studies that investigated user perspectives and experiences of telehealth in COPD management, in order to identify factors which may impact on uptake. Method: Systematic review and meta-synthesis of published qualitative studies of user (patients, their carers and clinicians) experience of telehealth technologies for the management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsychInfo and Web of Knowledge databases were searched up to October 2014. Reference lists of included studies and reference lists of key papers were also searched. Quality appraisal was guided by an adapted version of the CASP qualitative appraisal tool. Findings: 705 references (after duplicates removed) were identified and 10 papers, relating to 7 studies were included in the review. Most authors of included studies had identified both positive and negative experiences of telehealth use in the management of COPD. Through a line of argument synthesis we were able to derive new insights from the data to identify three overarching themes that have the ability to either impede or promote positive user experience of telehealth in COPD: the influence on moral dilemmas of help seeking—(enables dependency or self-care); transforming interactions (increases risk or reassurance) and reconfiguration of ‘work’ practices (causes burden or empowerment). Conclusion: Findings from this meta-synthesis have implications for the future design and implementation of telehealth services. Future research needs to include potential users at an earlier stage of telehealth/service development.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Brunton & Peter Bower & Caroline Sanders, 2015. "The Contradictions of Telehealth User Experience in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0139561
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139561
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139561
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139561&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0139561?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Birthe Dinesen & Lotte Huniche & Egon Toft, 2013. "Attitudes of COPD Patients towards Tele-Rehabilitation: A Cross-Sector Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Williams, Tracy & May, Carl & Mair, Frances & Mort, Maggie & Gask, Linda, 2003. "Normative models of health technology assessment and the social production of evidence about telehealth care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 39-54, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    2. Baptiste Isabet & Maribel Pino & Manon Lewis & Samuel Benveniste & Anne-Sophie Rigaud, 2021. "Social Telepresence Robots: A Narrative Review of Experiments Involving Older Adults before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-26, March.
    3. Myriam Le Goff-Pronost & Claude Sicotte, 2010. "The added value of thorough economic evaluation of telemedicine networks," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(1), pages 45-55, February.
    4. Bee, Penny Elizabeth & Lovell, Karina & Lidbetter, Nicola & Easton, Katherine & Gask, Linda, 2010. "You can't get anything perfect: "User perspectives on the delivery of cognitive behavioural therapy by telephone"," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1308-1315, October.
    5. Shaw, Sara E. & Greenhalgh, Trisha, 2008. "Best research - For what? Best health - For whom? A critical exploration of primary care research using discourse analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2506-2519, June.
    6. Alan Serrano & Javier Garcia-Guzman & Georgios Xydopoulos & Ali Tarhini, 2020. "Analysis of Barriers to the Deployment of Health Information Systems: a Stakeholder Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 455-474, April.
    7. Peine & Moors, 2013. "Valuing Health Technology – New Value Spaces For Personal Health Systems To Support Active Ageing," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 13-02, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Sep 2013.

    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:plo:pone00:0139561. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.