Skip to main content
Download PDF

The development of evaluation scale of the patient satisfaction with telemedicine: a systematic review

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making volume 24, Article number: 31 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine become more and more popular, patients attempt to use telemedicine to meet personal medical needs. Patient satisfaction is a key indicator of insight into the patient experience.

Purpose

This systematic review aims to explore the measurement factors of patient satisfaction with telemedicine and develop a more comprehensive and systematic scale of patient satisfaction with telemedicine.

Methods

In February 2023, a literature search was conducted on the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, identifying measurement factors and tools of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. For inclusion, the studies had to have or make a questionnaire about patient satisfaction with telemedicine delivered through video/audio visits in English. The quality of the studies was evaluated according to the Critical Appraisal Tool for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The dimensions and items in each tool were also analyzed.

Results

The initial search showed 14,020 studies. After eliminating duplicates and utilizing inclusion and exclusion criteria, 44 studies were included. This systematic review identified and integrated the measurement factors and develops a scale of patient satisfaction with telemedicine, which was divided into 9 dimensions and consists of 37 items.

Conclusion

Future measurement and evaluation of telemedicine will benefit from scale that was developed in this study, and it will more directly reflecting patient needs when patient satisfaction with telemedicine is evaluated.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines telemedicine as “an interaction between a healthcare provider and a patient when the two are separated by distance”, and this communication may be synchronous (as in telephone or video consultations) or asynchronous (when data, queries and responses are exchanged by email or short message service) [1,2,3]. Telemedicine could not only provide clinical support and improve health outcomes, but also avoid patient travels, decrease exposure for patients and medical staff, and reduce health sector costs [2,3,4,5]. Therefore, It became an essential component of the medical response [6].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine played an important role in provision of healthcare services to patients [7]. The use of telemedicine delivered through synchronous visits in various countries has increased significantly. At the early stage of pandemic, the weekly telemedicine visits have increased from 12,000 to 1,000,000 in just 3 months in the United States [8]. During the isolation period, the remote consultation involving basic medical care has reached 1.2 million people per day in the UK [8]. Telemedicine expanded tremendously and continue to flourish [9]. In other words, telemedicine has completely changed the medical service mode [10].

Patient satisfaction is one of the most significant indicators reflecting assurance of validation and acceptance of this emerging medical service mode [11]. As the voice of the patient, it is the only source of information that can report how they were treated and if the treatment patients received met their expectations [12]. With the increasing uptake of telemedicine, it is necessary to insight into what practices and process patients consider to be satisfied with [13]. However, Barsom et al. mentioned that different studies used a diverse range of questionnaires to measure patient satisfaction with telemedicine, which resulted in heterogeneous data, so it is difficult to compare and combine results of different studies [14]. Agbali et al. concluded that it was necessary to develop a standardized uniform patient satisfaction with telemedicine evaluation tool to increase versatility and agility [15]. Therefore, In this systematic review, we aimed to summarized and integrated the relevant measurement factors of patient satisfaction with telemedicine and develop a more comprehensive and systematic patient satisfaction scale for future research use.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement [16]. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022369348.

Study design and search strategy

The retrieval formula consisted of two main parts: “telemedicine” and “satisfaction”. Through the two main parts, the following search terms were used: “telemedicine”, “telehealth”, “telecommunication”, “teleconferenc*”, “videoconferenc*”, “video consultation”, and, “satisfaction”, “experience”, “perception”, “preference”. Based on the above search terms, we tailored search strategies to each database and used controlled medical subject headings (MeSHs) and search filters where available, or Boolean search methods and free-text terms (Supplementary 1). Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the telemedicine audiovisual mode developed rapidly, and people paid more attention to its satisfaction. During this period, a lot of relevant research appeared, therefore, the search scope for the study was determined from January 2020 to February 2023.

Data sources

A systematic literature search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We also carried out hand searches from reference lists of retrieved studies.

Study selection

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in Table 1. Two reviewers screened search results by title and abstract to identify studies whether meet the inclusion criteria outlined above. The full text of potentially eligible studies was retrieved and assessed by the two same reviewers. Any disagreement between them over the eligibility of studies was resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

Data extraction

The included studies were read in full. Two reviewers performed the relevant information and data that were collated in Microsoft Excel, which includes author, year of publication, country, study design, disease type, telemedicine mode, questionnaire dimension, and the number of satisfaction measurement factors.

Quality and risk of bias assessment

To ensure the validity and credibility of this study, the quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the Critical Appraisal Tool for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [9]. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted by two reviewers. Any disagreement between them over the quality assessment of literatures was resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.

Results

Study selection

The study selection process and the results of the literature search are depicted in Fig. 1. Using our search strategy, 14,020 studies were retrieved from 3 databases. After removing 2949 duplicates, 11,071 studies were screened by titles and abstracts, and 10,948 studies were excluded. The remaining 123 studies were read full text, 79 were excluded and finally 44 studies were selected for this study.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the selection process

Full size image

Study characteristics

The characteristics of 44 studies were summarized in Table 2. The included studies were all the cross-sectional study, and each study was about telemedicine that delivered through video/audio visits. Most of included studies (n = 32) were conducted in United States [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48], and a few were conducted in Italy (n = 3) [49,50,51], Spain (n = 2) [52, 53], Egypt (n = 1) [54], Australia (n = 1) [55], India (n = 1) [56], United Kingdom (n = 1) [57], Canada(n = 1) [58], France (n = 1) [59], Colombia (n = 1) [60]. The vast majority included studies (n = 38) reported on the types of participants’ diseases, which includes head and neck otolaryngology (n = 1) [17], pediatric (n = 1) [52], physical, occupational, and speech therapy (n = 1) [18], orthopaedic (n = 1) [19], pediatric pulmonary (n = 1) [20], cancer (n = 4) [21, 30, 50, 58], neurology (n = 1) [22], pediatric urology (n = 1) [24], rhinology (n = 1) [25], neuromuscular disorder (n = 1) [26], allergy (n = 1) [27], pediatric diabetes (n = 1) [28], epilepsy (n = 1) [56], prechemotherapy (n = 1) [29], pediatric rheumatology (n = 1) [32], neurosurgery (n = 1) [33], cystic fibrosis (n = 1) [35], pediatric and young adult type 1 diabetes (n = 1) [49], shoulder arthroscopy (n = 1) [36], pediatric surgery (n = 1) [53], vascular surgery (n = 1) [57], maternal mental health and substance use disorder treatment (n = 1) [38], referral (n = 1) [39], dermatology (n = 1) [40], endovascular neurosurgery (n = 1) [41], gynecologic cancer (n = 1) [42], orthopedic (n = 1) [43], urogynecology (n = 1) [44], ophthalmology (n = 1) [45], irritable bowel syndrome (n = 1) [46], sickle cell disease (n = 1) [47], bariatric (n = 1) [59], craniosynostosis-operated children (n = 1) [60], chronic neurologic disorders (n = 1) [51], and colorectal surgery (n = 1) [48]. While the remaining studies (n = 6) did not limit the patient types [23, 31, 34, 37, 54, 55]. For the evaluation questionnaire, there are part of studies (n = 16) using existing questionnaires [17, 22, 26, 28, 30, 32,33,34, 42, 46, 47, 50, 55, 56, 58, 59], a few of studies’ questionnaire (n = 3) were designed based on different studies [21, 24, 49], several studies (n = 7) evaluating by self-developed questionnaires [19, 25, 29, 39, 51, 57, 60], and some (n = 18) studies did not mension the specific questionnaires used [18, 20, 23, 27, 31, 35,36,37,38, 40, 41, 43,44,45, 48, 52,53,54]. In addition, the questionnaires used in several studies (n = 18) were divided into various dimensions [17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 32, 34, 37, 38, 44, 47, 49,50,51, 53,54,55, 57].

Table 2 Compilation of observations for our sample
Full size table

The outcome of quality assessment

Based on the Critical Appraisal Tool for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), 42 studies were at low risk of bias [17,18,19, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44, 46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60], while the rest 2 studies were rated as the moderate risk of bias [20, 45]. The details of study quality are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Quality assessment

Full size image

Synthesis of results

We summarized the measurement factors of patient satisfaction with telemedicine of 44 included studies. The process of integrating factors led us to find that the measurement of patient satisfaction with telemedicine involves various dimensions. To ensure the scientific rationality of this study, it is essential to build a conceptual framework for measuring patient satisfaction. 18 included studies’ questionnaires presented in Table 2 are dimensioned [17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 32, 34, 37, 38, 44, 47, 49,50,51, 53,54,55, 57]. The dimensions involve perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [61], facilitating conditions of the model of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [62], and interpersonal manner, technical quality, accessibility/convenience, finances, efficacy/outcomes, continuity, physical environment, and availability of a widely used Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire [63]. Based on the above category of models and literatures, we have divided all items into 9 dimensions: humanistic care, doctor-patient communication, service efficiency, diagnosis and treatment result, ease of use, system quality, usefulness, privacy and security, overall satisfaction.

According to above dimensions and items in included studies, we sorted out and combined them. Of the 44 included studies, 14 studies involved humanistic care, which includes the courtesy, friendliness, and care of doctors to patients [21, 23, 30, 33, 34, 37, 38, 42,43,44, 47, 49, 53, 56]. Twenty-eight studies involved doctor-patient communication, which includes doctor’s listening to patients, doctor’s explanations to patients, and communication between doctors and patients [17, 19,20,21, 23, 26,27,28, 30, 32, 34, 36,37,38, 40, 42, 44, 46,47,48, 50,51,52,53,54, 56, 58, 60]. Nine studies involved service efficiency, which includes the punctuality of the telemedicine visiting process [17, 26, 36, 38, 44, 48, 50, 51, 60]. Twenty-three studies involved diagnosis and treatment result, which includes whether patients’ problems, concerns, and needs were achieved [17, 18, 20,21,22, 24, 25, 32, 34, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 56,57,58, 60]. Nineteen studies involved ease of use, about medical services and system technology [17, 20, 23, 27, 29, 30, 32, 36,37,38, 44,45,46,47, 50, 54, 56, 57, 60]. Twenty-five studies involved system quality, which includes telemedicine systems support during telemedicine visits [17, 20, 22, 24, 26,27,28,29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 42, 44,45,46,47, 50, 54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. Nineteen studies involved usefulness, which includes the benefits of telemedicine [17, 20, 22, 24, 26, 32, 34, 36,37,38, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 54,55,56,57]. Eight study involved privacy and security, which includes the security of personal privacy when patients use telemedicine [26, 41, 42, 44, 48, 50, 57, 59]. Thirty-nine studies involved overall satisfaction, which is the patient’s general evaluation on telemedicine [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39, 41,42,43,44, 47,48,49,50,51,52, 54, 56,57,58,59,60].

Trough the above work, we developed a systematic patient satisfaction scale for telemedicine, involving 9 dimensions and 37 items. It has 36 objective questions and 1 subjective question. The patient satisfaction conceptual framework and scale for telemedicine are displayed in Fig. 3 and Table 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Evaluation scale framework for patient satisfaction with telemedicine

Full size image
Table 3 Patient satisfaction scale for telemedicine
Full size table

Discussion

Our review of 44 studies that assessed patient satisfaction with telemedicine shows that there is minimal agreement on their evaluation tools. As a result, this study makes a comprehensive questionnaire for future research of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to develop a scale to assess patient satisfaction with telemedicine by a review and integrate of included studies.

Summary of included studies

By observing the characteristics of included studies, we found that most of them were from developed countries, including United States, Italy, Spain, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada and France. Although telemedicine has not been popularized worldwide [64], the patient satisfaction survey could provide a reference for developing and underdeveloped countries. In addition, this study contains a variety of disease types, which shows that the future development of telemedicine is almost unlimited by disease types, and the prospect is extremely bright. As a major role in the development of medical services in the future, telemedicine needs to be continuously improved according to patient satisfaction [65].

Principal findings

In our scale, there was significant variation in the number of reference studies for each dimension (Table 3), 4 dimensions from 20 or more included studies and 3 dimensions from 10 to 20 included studies, while 2 dimension from less than 10 included studies.

For “Humanistic Care” and “Doctor-Patient Communication”, some included studies (n = 14) (n = 28) supported these 2 dimensions, which could reveal that the strongly importance and closely relevance of these 2 dimensions. The process of establishing interpersonal relationships usually relies on the initial minutes of a conversation [66], including physician’s courtesy, friendliness and care, which determines the patient’s first impression and whether they are willing to trust and communicate with the physician. However, doctor-patient communication is the primary action for the physician and the patient exchange information [67], which involves physician’s listen and explanation. Undoubtedly, doctor-patient communication plays a decisive role in the follow-up close cooperation, diagnosis and treatment, and overall satisfaction.

A small amount of included studies (n = 9) discussed the dimension of “Service Efficiency”. Each item of this dimension revolves around decreasing wait times and increasing visit efficiency. It is one of advantages why patient embrace telemedicine [68].

According to included studies (n = 23) which relate to the dimension of “diagnosis and treatment result”, whether the medical problem and need were overcame are valued. As the initial expectation of patient who use telemedicine, physical condition improvement closely associates with satisfaction [69]. To be widely adopted, telemedicine must compete favorably with in-person visits in medical outcomes [70].

A number of included studies has the dimension of “Ease of Use” (n = 19). It mainly includes appropriate system setting and access of services. Ease of use of the technology is an important factor that can influence or even determine the intention to use telemedicine [71].

“System Quality” (n = 25) is the basic factor of telemedicine technology, which may affect telemedicine visits directly and indirectly. On the one hand, audio quality must be of a sufficiently high standard to make effective communication [72]. On the other hand, doctor may get vague message with unclear video. This phenomenon could lead patients’ treatment delay or diagnostic error.

Based on half of (n = 19) included studies, the usefulness of telemedicine involves various aspects, including saving travel time [73], increasing access to care and doctor [74]. In the process of offline medical diagnosis and treatment, patients often encounter the problem of registration difficulties, even the experts. However, the online reservation service of telemedicine can better save the travel time of patients and avoid the situation of making a futile trip.

Although the dimension of “privacy and security” are covered by fewer included studies (n = 8), it is a major obstacle to the adoption of telemedicine. Most patients are accustomed to consider medical quality, and service efficiency as main factors in choosing medical services, which result in the neglect of privacy issues. However, once there was problem about privacy, it will seriously affect patients’ impressions and even cause distrust telemedicine. Previous questionnaires nearly did not follow with interest this point [75], our research made up the lack of overlooking the privacy and security.

The dimension of “Overall Satisfaction” is included in most included studies (n = 39), which is used to measure patients’ integrated perception. TAM’s originators reasoned that the key to increasing use was to first increase acceptance of technology, which could be assessed by asking users about their future intentions to use the technology [76]. Therefore, a subjective question that “Expectation of improvement” was included in this dimension.

Multiple digital and telecommunication technologies have created an unprecedented opportunity for the field of health [77]. As one of the new technology, telemedicine can offer flexibility and convenience to patients [78]. The drivers for satisfaction stem from the benefit of telemedicine [79]. According to the above discussion, during the process of researching the patient satisfaction with telemedicine, we not only pay more attention to the significant dimension, but also can we not ignore the issues that have not yet attracted concern and patient’s expectation of improvement. These will help providers constantly modify or develop systems widely accepted by users. In a word, the widespread adoption of this scale could help transform telemedicine from a convenience-driven technology into a patient-centered healthcare delivery model.

Limitations

There are 3 limitations in this study. The first limitation is that our research only included three English databases, it may omit valid literatures for our review. The second limitation is that telemedicine is developing rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and its satisfaction measurement factors may be changed in the future. And the last limitation of this study is that this study just research on telemedicine that delivered through video/audio visits.

Conclusion

This review reported on 44 studies that focused on patient satisfaction with telemedicine for various disease. We developed a scale for evaluating patient satisfaction with telemedicine by applying multidimensional constructs to capture patient satisfaction comprehensively, which involves nine dimensions, such as humanistic care, doctor-patient communication, service efficiency, diagnosis and treatment result, ease of use, system quality, usefulness, privacy and security, overall satisfaction. This scale could be a meaningful tool for future studies to delve into patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Not only will it provide researchers with a framework for quantitatively analyzing patient feedback, but also it will give telemedicine providers insights into areas where they can improve their services. And eventually, providers create a truly “patient-centered” telemedicine service to better meet the needs of patient.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global Diffusion of eHealth: Making Universal Health Coverage Achievable. Report of the Third Global Survey on eHealth. 2019. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511780/. Accessed February 16, 2022.

  2. World Health Organization. Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States: Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth. 2009. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44497/. Accessed February 16, 2022.

  3. Pinnock H, Murphie P, Vogiatzis I, Poberezhets V. Telemedicine and virtual respiratory care in the era of COVID-19. ERJ Open Res. 2022;8(3):00111–2022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ramaswamy A, Yu M, Drangsholt S, et al. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e20786.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Mehrotra A, Bhatia RS, Snoswell CL. Paying for telemedicine after the pandemic. JAMA. 2021;325(5):431–2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ross SW, Lauer CW, Miles WS, et al. Maximizing the calm before the storm: tiered surgical response plan for novel coronavirus (COVID-19). J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230(6):1080–1091.e3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Mehraeen E, Mehrtak M, SeyedAlinaghi S, et al. Technology in the era of COVID-19: a systematic review of current evidence. Infect Disord Drug Targets. 2022;22(4):e240322202551.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu X. Overseas observation: the rise of global telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yangtze River Delta Hospital Alliance H-TQM Review. 2020; Available from: https://www.cn-healthcare.com/articlewm/20201019/content-1154485.html. Accessed January 16, 2023

  9. Doraiswamy S, Abraham A, Mamtani R, Cheema S. Use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e24087.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Morgan DG, Kosteniuk J, Stewart N, O'Connell ME, Karunanayake C, Beever R. The telehealth satisfaction scale: reliability, validity, and satisfaction with telehealth in a rural memory clinic population. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(11):997–1003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cole TO, Robinson D, Kelley-Freeman A, et al. Patient satisfaction with medications for opioid use disorder treatment via telemedicine: brief literature review and development of a new assessment. Front Public Health. 2021;8:557275.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Cleary PD. A hospitalization from hell: a patient's perspective on quality. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(1):33–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Donabedian A. Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. In: The defnition of quality and approaches to its assessment, vol. 1. Ann Arbor:Health Administration Press; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Barsom EZ, van Hees E, Bemelman WA, Schijven MP. Measuring patient satisfaction with video consultation: a systematic review of assessment tools and their measurement properties. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;1-7

  15. Agbali R, Balas AE, Beltrame F, De Leo G. A review of audiovisual telemedicine utilization and satisfaction assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021;38(1):e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Layfield E, Triantafillou V, Prasad A, et al. Telemedicine for head and neck ambulatory visits during COVID-19: evaluating usability and patient satisfaction. Head Neck. 2020;42(7):1681–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Tenforde AS, Borgstrom H, Polich G, et al. Outpatient physical, occupational, and speech therapy synchronous telemedicine: a survey study of patient satisfaction with virtual visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;99(11):977–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bisson LJ, Kluczynski MA, Lindborg CM, et al. The association between patient satisfaction and mode of visit (telemedicine versus in-person) in a large Orthopaedic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: a retrospective study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2021;5(9):e21.00046.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Capusan KY, Fenster T. Patient satisfaction with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic in a pediatric pulmonary clinic. J Pediatr Health Care. 2021;35(6):587–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chang PJ, Jay GM, Kalpakjian C, Andrews C, Smith S. Patient and provider-reported satisfaction of Cancer rehabilitation telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. PM R. 2021;13(12):1362–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Dratch L, Paul RA, Baldwin A, et al. Transitioning to telegenetics in the COVID-19 era: patient satisfaction with remote genetic counseling in adult neurology. J Genet Couns. 2021;30(4):974–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Drerup B, Espenschied J, Wiedemer J, Hamilton L. Reduced no-show rates and sustained patient satisfaction of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health. 2021;27(12):1409–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gan Z, Lee SY, Weiss DA, et al. Single institution experience with telemedicine for pediatric urology outpatient visits: adapting to COVID-19 restrictions, patient satisfaction, and future utilization. J Pediatr Urol. 2021;17(4):480.e1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hentati F, Cabrera CI, D'Anza B, Rodriguez K. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine in rhinology during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Otolaryngol. 2021;42(3):102921.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Hooshmand S, Cho J, Singh S, Govindarajan R. Satisfaction of telehealth in patients with established neuromuscular disorders. Front Neurol. 2021;12:667813.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lanier K, Kuruvilla M, Shih J. Patient satisfaction and utilization of telemedicine services in allergy: an institutional survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(1):484–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. March CA, Muzumdar R, Libman I. How do virtual visits compare? Parent satisfaction with pediatric diabetes telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Clin Diabetes Healthc. 2022;2:794493.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Sathiyaraj A, Lopez H, Surapaneni R. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine for prechemotherapy evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future Oncol. 2021;17(13):1593–600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shaverdian N, Gillespie EF, Cha E, et al. Impact of telemedicine on patient satisfaction and perceptions of care quality in radiation oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2021;19(10):1174–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Volcy J, Smith W, Mills K, et al. Assessment of patient and provider satisfaction with the change to telehealth from in-person visits at an academic safety net institution during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021;34(Suppl):S71–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Waqar-Cowles LN, Chuo J, Weiss PF, Gmuca S, LaNoue M, Burnham JM. Evaluation of pediatric rheumatology telehealth satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2021;19(1):170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Yoon EJ, Tong D, Anton GM, et al. Patient satisfaction with neurosurgery telemedicine visits during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a prospective cohort study. World Neurosurg. 2021;145:e184–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zimmerman M, Benjamin I, Tirpak JW, D'Avanzato C. Patient satisfaction with partial hospital telehealth treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: comparison to in-person treatment. Psychiatry Res. 2021;301:113966.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ahmed R, Greenfield M, Morley CP, Desimone M. Satisfaction and concerns with telemedicine endocrine Care of Patients with cystic fibrosis. Telemed Rep. 2022;3(1):93–100.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Cha EDK, Suraci C, Petrosky D, et al. Patient satisfaction in shoulder arthroscopy: telemedicine vs. clinic follow-up visits. Clin Shoulder Elb. 2022;25(2):106–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen K, Lodaria K, Jackson HB. Patient satisfaction with telehealth versus in-person visits during COVID-19 at a large, public healthcare system. J Eval Clin Pract. 2022;28(6):986–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Guille C, Johnson E, Douglas E, et al. A pilot study examining access to and satisfaction with maternal mental health and substance use disorder treatment via telemedicine. Telemed Rep. 2022;3(1):24–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Jones E, Kurman J, Delia E, et al. Parent satisfaction with outpatient telemedicine services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a repeated cross-sectional study. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:908337.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaunitz G, Yin L, Nagler AR, Sicco KL, Kim RH. Assessing patient satisfaction with live-interactive Teledermatology visits during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey study. Telemed J E Health. 2022;28(4):591–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Majmundar N, Ducruet AF, Wilkinson DA, et al. Telemedicine for endovascular neurosurgery consultation during the COVID-19 era: patient satisfaction survey. World Neurosurg. 2022;158:e577–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mojdehbakhsh RP, Mora Hurtado AC, Uppal S, Milakovich H, Spencer RJ. The long game: telemedicine patient satisfaction metrics and methods of recurrence detection for gynecologic cancer patients throughout the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2022;42:101037.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Omari AM, Antonacci CL, Zaifman J, et al. Patient satisfaction with orthopedic telemedicine health visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health. 2022;28(6):806–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sansone S, Lu J, Drangsholt S, Asfaw TS, Segal S. No pelvic exam, no problem: patient satisfaction following the integration of comprehensive urogynecology telemedicine. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(9):2401–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Summers AI, Kuo A, Zaback T, Loh AR, Brinks MV, Hribar MR. Pediatric ophthalmology provider and staff attitudes and patient satisfaction in telehealth implementation during COVID-19. Telemed J E Health. 2022;28(5):675–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Yu C, Tovar S, Shi J, et al. Satisfaction with telehealth among patients with irritable bowel syndrome during COVID-19: cross-sectional survey findings. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2022;13(9):e00515.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang S, Xue W, Boorman EP, et al. Accessible Care with High Patient Satisfaction: Telemedicine Use in Sickle Cell Disease. Telemed J E Health. 2022; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1089/tmj.2022.0387.

  48. Yao LY, Fleshner PR, Zaghiyan KN. Impact of postoperative telemedicine visit versus in-person visit on patient satisfaction: a randomized clinical trial. Surgery. 2023;173(2):322–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bassi M, Strati MF, Parodi S, et al. Patient satisfaction of telemedicine in pediatric and young adult type 1 diabetes patients during Covid-19 pandemic. Front Public Health. 2022;10:857561.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Cascella M, Coluccia S, Grizzuti M, et al. Satisfaction with telemedicine for Cancer pain management: a model of care and cross-sectional patient satisfaction study. Curr Oncol. 2022;29(8):5566–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Rosellini I, Vianello M, Palmieri A, et al. Patient satisfaction with televisit in chronic neurologic disorders during Covid-19 pandemic [published online ahead of print, 2023 Jan 12]. Acta Neurol Belg. 2023:1–9.

  52. López Seguí F, Batlle Boada A, García García JJ, et al. Families' degree of satisfaction with pediatric Telehomecare: interventional prospective pilot study in Catalonia. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2020;3(1):e17517.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Cockrell H, Wayne D, Wandell G, et al. Understanding hispanic patient satisfaction with telehealth during COVID-19 [published online ahead of print, 2022 Dec 22]. J Pediatr Surg. 2022;S0022-3468(22):00779–5.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Abdel Nasser A, Mohammed Alzahrani R, Aziz Fellah C, et al. Measuring the Patients' satisfaction about telemedicine used in Saudi Arabia during COVID-19 pandemic. Cureus. 2021;13(2):e13382.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Bate NJ, Xu SC, Pacilli M, Roberts LJ, Kimber C, Nataraja RM. Effect of the COVID-19 induced phase of massive telehealth uptake on end-user satisfaction. Intern Med J. 2021;51(2):206–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Nair PP, Aghoram R, Thomas B, Bharadwaj B, Chinnakali P. Video teleconsultation services for persons with epilepsy during COVID-19 pandemic: an exploratory study from public tertiary care hospital in southern India on feasibility, satisfaction, and effectiveness. Epilepsy Behav. 2021;117:107863.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Contractor U, Haas W, Reed P, Osborne L, Tree J, Bosanquet DC. Patient satisfaction with tele- and video-consultation in the COVID-19 era - a survey of vascular surgical patients. Ann Vasc Surg. 2022;85:105–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Gondal H, Abbas T, Choquette H, et al. Patient and physician satisfaction with telemedicine in Cancer Care in Saskatchewan: a cross-sectional study. Curr Oncol. 2022;29(6):3870–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Daouadji-Ghazouani A, Aron-Wisnewsky J, Torcivia A, et al. Follow-up, safety, and satisfaction with tele-bariatric follow-up implemented during the COVID-19 French lockdown: a 2-year follow-up study [published correction appears in Obes Surg. 2023 Apr 26;]. Obes Surg. 2023;33(4):1083–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Kilipiris EG, Horn F, Kolnikova M, et al. Parental satisfaction from telemedicine in the follow-up of children operated for Craniosynostosis during COVID-19 pandemic. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(5):562–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rahimi B, Nadri H, Lotfnezhad Afshar H, Timpka T. A systematic review of the technology acceptance model in health informatics. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9(3):604–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Ammenwerth E. Technology acceptance models in health informatics: TAM and UTAUT. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;263:64–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ware JE Jr, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3–4):247–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Combi C, Pozzani G, Pozzi G. Telemedicine for developing countries. A survey and some design issues. Appl Clin Inform. 2016;7(4):1025–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Liang H, Xue Y, Zhang ZR. Patient satisfaction in China: a national survey of inpatients and outpatients. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e049570.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Chaitchik S, Kreitler S, Shaked S, Schwartz I, Rosin R. Doctor-patient communication in a cancer ward. J Cancer Educ. 1992;7(1):41–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rimondini M, Mazzi MA, Busch IM, Bensing J. You only have one chance for a first impression! Impact of Patients' first impression on the global quality assessment of Doctors' communication approach. Health Commun. 2019;34(12):1413–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B, et al. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016242.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Nguyen M, Waller M, Pandya A, et al. A review of patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2020;20(11):72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Portnoy JM, Waller M, De Lurgio S, et al. Telemedicine is as effective as in-person visits for patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016;117(3):241–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Liesa-Orús M, Latorre-Cosculluela C, Sierra-Sánchez V, et al. Links between ease of use, perceived usefulness and attitudes towards technology in older people in university: a structural equation modelling approach. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2023;28(3):2419–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Loane MA, Bloomer SE, Corbett R, et al. Patient satisfaction with realtime teledermatology in Northern Ireland. J Telemed Telecare. 1998;4(1):36–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Breen P, Murphy K, Browne G, et al. Formative evaluation of a telemedicine model for delivering clinical neurophysiology services part I: utility, technical performance and service provider perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Gibson KL, Coulson H, Miles R, Kakekakekung C, Daniels E, O'Donnell S. Conversations on telemental health: listening to remote and rural first nations communities. Rural Remote Health. 2011;11(2):1656.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Bakken S, Grullon-Figueroa L, Izquierdo R, et al. Development, validation, and use of English and Spanish versions of the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):660–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43(1):159–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Mohammadi S, SeyedAlinaghi SA, Heydari M, et al. Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 management: a systematic review. J Comput Sci. 2023;19(5):554–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Bajowala SS, Milosch J, Bansal C. Telemedicine pays: billing and coding update. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2020;20(10):60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Taylor L, Capling H, Portnoy JM. Administering a telemedicine program. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2018;18(11):57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all included studies’ authors in this study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Information Technology and Management, Yanjing Medical College, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Yifei Du & Yu Gu

Authors
  1. Yifei Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Yifei Du and Yu Gu searched and selected literature, extracted data, assessed the quality of the included studies, and developed the scale. Yifei Du wrote the original manuscript. Yu Gu reviewed and amended the original manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Gu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

 Search strategy.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Du, Y., Gu, Y. The development of evaluation scale of the patient satisfaction with telemedicine: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 24, 31 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12911-024-02436-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12911-024-02436-z

Keywords

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

ISSN: 1472-6947

Contact us