Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Users’ perception on telemedicine service: a comparative study of public healthcare and private healthcare

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Telemedicine services have been applied in public healthcare and private healthcare. Despite the different characteristics of healthcare services, the service models have been designed very similarly. Telemedicine services should be designed to reflect the characteristics of their own and their users’ perceptions of service. Thus, this comparative study was undertaken to examine the perceptions of telemedicine services between public healthcare users and private healthcare users. This study collected 192 samples, using paper-based surveys, from two groups: public (n = 101) and private healthcare service users (n = 81). We performed two independent samples t-tests depending on the group to measure the differences in satisfaction and continuous intention to use, as well as the perception of the telemedicine service. Multiple regression analysis was performed to compare influential factors in continuous intention to use regarding public healthcare users and private healthcare users. The two groups had significantly different perceptions of both perceived risk and satisfaction (p < 0.05). Private healthcare users expressed greater satisfaction with telemedicine services than did public healthcare users, whereas private healthcare users felt less worry about perceived risk. Both groups perceived that telemedicine was useful and easy to use for healthcare service, expressing higher intentions to use. In both groups, perceived usefulness and ease of use had positive effects on continuous intention to use (p < 0.05). In public healthcare users only, satisfaction was found to be an important variable that increased intention to use (p < 0.05). Perceived risk had no relationship with continuous intention to use in either group. This study provides insight into understanding the users of telemedicine services and guidelines for developing appropriate telemedicine service models, depending whether it is public healthcare or private healthcare.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bahaadinbeigy K, Yogesan K, Wootton R (2010) A survey of the state of telemedicine in Western Australian. Telemed Telecare 16(4):176–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Basoglu N, Daim TU, Topacan U (2010) Determining patient preferences for remote monitoring. J Med Syst 36(3):1389–1401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bon VAC, Kohinor MJE, Hoekstra JBL, Basum GV, DeVries JH (2010) Patients’ perception and future acceptance of an artificial pancreas. J Diabetes Sci Technol 4(3):596–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Buysse HEC, Coorevits P, Maele GV, Hutse A, Kaufman J, Ruige J, De Moor GJE (2010) Introducing telemonitoring for diabetic patients: development of a telemonitoring ‘Health Effect and Readiness’ questionnaire. Int J Med Inform 79(8):576–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cardozo L, Steinberg J (2010) Telemedicine for recently discharged older patients. Telemed J E Health 16(1):49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cho JH, Lee HC, Lim DJ, Kwon HS, Yoon KH (2009) Mobile communication using a mobile phone with a glucometer for glucose control in Type 2 patients with diabetes: as effective as an Internet-based glucose monitoring system. J Telemed Telecare 15(2):77–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cocosila M, Archer N (2009) An empirical investigation of mobile health adoption in preventive interventions. Bled 2009 Proceedings; 22nd Bled eConference; June 14-17, Bled, Slovenia. 2009

  8. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hung SY, Tsai JCA, Chuang CC (2013) Investigating primary health care nurses’ intention to use information technology: an empirical study in Taiwan. Decis Support Syst 57:331–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jen WY (2010) The adoption of mobile weight management services in a virtual community: the perspective of college students. Telemed E Health 16(4):490–497. doi:10.1089/tmj.2009.0126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jorgensen HR, Turolla A, Piron L, Pedersen M, Agostini M, Larsen T (2011) Implementation of a telerehabilitation program in an EHSD model of care for persons with a stroke. Int J Integr Care 11:e105

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jung EY, Kim JH, Chung KY, Park DK (2013) Home health gateway based healthcare services through u-health platform. Wirel Pers Commun. doi:10.1007/s11277-013-1231-8

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kang J, Chun H, Shin IH, Shin SD, Suh GJ, Kim HC (2006) Preliminary evaluation of the use of a CDMA-based emergency telemedicine system. J Telemed Telecare 12(8):422–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kearns JW, Bowerman D, Kemmis K, Izquierdo RE, Wade M, Weinstock RS (2012) Group diabetes education administered through telemedicine: tools used and lessons learned. Telemed J E Health 18(5):347–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim BS (2011) U-healthcare & medical information system of status and operative challenges for integrated medical information system. J Digit Policy Manag 9(5):65–75

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kim JH, Lee D, Chung KY (2013) Item recommendation based on context-aware model for personalized u-healthcare service. Multimed Tools Appl. doi:10.1007/s11042-011-0920-0

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lee JB, Rho MJ (2013) The perception of influencing factors on acceptance of mobile health monitoring service: a comparison between users and non‐users. Healthc Inform Res 19(3):167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lim N (2003) Consumers’ perceived risk: sources versus consequences. Electron Commer Res Appl 2(3):216–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lim S, Kim SY, Kim JI, Kwon MK, Min SJ, Yoo SY, Kang SM, Kim HI, Jung HS, Park KS, Ryu JO, Hl S, Jang HC (2011) A survey on ubiquitous healthcare service demand among diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab J 35(1):50–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Littman-Quinn R, Chandra A, Schwartz A, Fadlelmola FM, Ghose S, Luberti AA, Tatarsky A, Chihanga S, Ramogola-Masire D, Steenhoff A, Kovarik C (2011) mHealth applications for telemedicine and public health intervention in Botswana, IST-Africa Conference Proceedings, 2011

  21. Mair FS, Goldstein P, May C, Angus R, Shiels C, Hibbert D, O’Connor J, Boland A, Roberts C, Haycox A, Capewell S (2005) Patient and provider perspectives on home telecare: preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare 11(1):95–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Manaf NHA (2012) Inpatient satisfaction: an analysis of Malaysian public hospitals. Int J Public Sect Manag 25(1):6–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mariappan M, Khoo B (2013) Design and development of communication and control platform for Medical Tele-diagnosis Robot (MTR). Int J Netw Commun 3(1):12–20. doi:10.5923/j.ijnc.20130301.02

    Google Scholar 

  24. Martinez A, Everss E, Rojo-Alvarez JL, Figal DP, Garcia-Alberola A (2006) A systematic review of the literature on home monitoring for patients with heart failure. J Telemed Telecare 12(5):234–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ministry of knowledge economy press releases (Cite 2010 May 12). Available from: http://www.mke.go.kr/news/coverage/bodoView.jsp?seq=61367&pageNo=1&srchType=1&srchWord=u-Health, 세계 최초로&pCtx=1

  26. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Paim J, Travassos C, Almeida C, Bahia L, Macinko J (2011) The Brazilian health system: history, advances, and challenges. Lancet 377:1778–1797. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60054-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Park HY, Chon YC, Lee JS, Choi IJ, Yoon KH (2011) Service design attributes affecting diabetic patient preferences of telemedicine in South Korea. Telemed J E Health 17(6):442–451

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Rai A, Chen L, Pye J, Baird A (2013) Understanding determinants of consumer mobile health usage intentions, assimilation, and channel preferences. J Med Internet Res 15(8):e149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rezende EJC, Tavares EC, Alves HJ, Santos ADFD, Melo MDCBD (2013) Teleconsultations in public primary care units of the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil: profile of patients and physicians. Telemed J E Health 19(8):613–618. doi:10.1089/tmj.2012.0179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rho MJ, Bae JK (2013) The physicians’ expected benefits: an empirical study of the telemedicine system acceptance. J Converg Inf Technol 8(12). doi:10.4156/jcit.vol8.issue12.2

  32. Rimner T, Blozik E, Begley C, Grandchamp C, von Overbeck J (2011) Patient adherence to recommendations after teleconsultation: survey of patients from a telemedicine centre in Switzerland. J Telemed Telecare 17(5):235–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Singh R, Mathiassen L, Stachura ME, Astapova EV (2010) Sustainable rural telehealth innovation: a public health case study. Health Serv Res 45(4):985–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Talukdar R, Reddy N (2012) Making endoscopy mobile: a novel initiative for public healthcare. Endoscopy 44(02):186–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Teijeiro T, Félix P, Presedo J, Zamarrón C (2013) An open platform for the protocolization of home medical supervision. Expert Syst Appl 40(7):2607–2614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wen-Yuan J (2010) The adoption of mobile weight management services in a virtual community: the perspective of college students. Telemed e-Health 16(4):490–497. doi:10.1089/tmj.2009.0126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Whitten P, Doolittle G, Mackert M (2005) Providers’ acceptance of telehospice. J Palliat Med 8(4):730–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the R&D Program for Society of the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (Grant number: 2013M3C8A2A02078508).

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Informatics, Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea Songeui Campus, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, Korea

    Mi Jung Rho & In Young Choi

  2. Department of Endocrinology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, Korea

    Kun Ho Yoon & Hun-Sung Kim

  3. The Catholic Institute of Ubiquitous Health Care, Catholic University, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, Korea

    Kun Ho Yoon & Hun-Sung Kim

Authors
  1. Mi Jung Rho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kun Ho Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hun-Sung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. In Young Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to In Young Choi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rho, M.J., Yoon, K.H., Kim, HS. et al. Users’ perception on telemedicine service: a comparative study of public healthcare and private healthcare. Multimed Tools Appl 74, 2483–2497 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-014-1966-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-014-1966-6

Keywords