Methods Inf Med 2021; 60(03/04): 071-083
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735947
Original Article

Do Hospitals Need to Extend Telehealth Services? An Experimental Study of Different Telehealth Modalities during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh
1   Department of Information Systems and Business Analytics, College of Business, Florida International University (FIU), Miami, Florida, United States
Tala Mirzaei
1   Department of Information Systems and Business Analytics, College of Business, Florida International University (FIU), Miami, Florida, United States
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.


Background The COVID-19 pandemic has changed health care systems and clinical workflows in many countries, including the United States. This public health crisis has accelerated the transformation of health care delivery through the use of telehealth. Due to the coronavirus' severity and pathogenicity, telehealth services are considered the best platforms to meet suddenly increased patient care demands, reduce the transformation of the virus, and protect patients and health care workers. However, many hospitals, clinicians, and patients are not ready to switch to virtual care completely.

Objectives We designed six experiments to examine how people (as an actual beneficiary of telehealth) evaluate five telehealth encounters versus face-to-face visits.

Methods We used an online survey to collect data from 751 individuals (patients) in the United States.

Results Findings demonstrate that significant factors for evaluating five types of telehealth encounters are perceived convenience expected from telehealth encounters, perceived psychological risks associated with telehealth programs, and perceived attentive care services delivered by telehealth platforms. However, significant elements for comparing telehealth services with traditional face-to-face clinic visits are perceived cost-saving, perceived time-saving, perceived hygienic services, perceived technical errors, perceived information completeness, perceived communication barriers, perceived trust in medical care platforms' competency, and perceived privacy concerns.

Conclusion Although the in-person visit was reported as the most preferred care practice, there was no significant difference between people's willingness to use face-to-face visits versus virtual care. Nevertheless, before the widespread rollout of telehealth platforms, health care systems need to determine and address the challenges of implementing virtual care to improve patient engagement in telehealth services. This study also provides practical implications for health care providers to deploy telehealth effectively during the pandemic and postpandemic phases.

Supplementary Material

Publication History

Received: 16 April 2021

Accepted: 05 August 2021

Article published online:
01 October 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

  • References

  • 1 Zhou X, Snoswell CL, Harding LE. et al. The role of telehealth in reducing the mental health burden from COVID-19. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26 (04) 377-379
  • 2 Wosik J, Fudim M, Cameron B. et al. Telehealth transformation: COVID-19 and the rise of virtual care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (06) 957-962
  • 3 World Health Organization. Analysis of third global survey on eHealth based on the reported data by countries, 2016. WHO.INT. Accessed June 7, 2021 at:
  • 4 Kvedar J, Coye MJ, Everett W. Connected health: a review of technologies and strategies to improve patient care with telemedicine and telehealth. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014; 33 (02) 194-199
  • 5 Kamsu-Foguem B, Tiako PF, Fotso LP, Foguem C. Modeling for effective collaboration in telemedicine. Telemat Inform 2015; 32 (04) 776-786
  • 6 Ohinmaa A, Vuolio S, Haukipuro K, Winblad I. A cost-minimization analysis of orthopaedic consultations using videoconferencing in comparison with conventional consulting. J Telemed Telecare 2002; 8 (05) 283-289
  • 7 Valentine AZ, Hall SS, Young E. et al. Implementation of telehealth services to assess, monitor, and treat neurodevelopmental disorders: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (01) e22619
  • 8 Demiris G, Doorenbos AZ, Towle C. Ethical considerations regarding the use of technology for older adults. The case of telehealth. Res Gerontol Nurs 2009; 2 (02) 128-136
  • 9 Newton MJ. The promise of telemedicine. Surv Ophthalmol 2014; 59 (05) 559-567
  • 10 Hall JL, McGraw D. For telehealth to succeed, privacy and security risks must be identified and addressed. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014; 33 (02) 216-221
  • 11 Wade VA, Eliott JA, Hiller JE. Clinician acceptance is the key factor for sustainable telehealth services. Qual Health Res 2014; 24 (05) 682-694
  • 12 Bradford NK, Caffery LJ, Smith AC. Telehealth services in rural and remote Australia: a systematic review of models of care and factors influencing success and sustainability. Rural Remote Health 2016; 16 (04) 245
  • 13 Holtz BE. Patients perceptions of telemedicine visits before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Telemed J E Health 2021; 27 (01) 107-112
  • 14 Kaplan B. Revisiting health information technology ethical, legal, and social issues and evaluation: telehealth/telemedicine and COVID-19. Int J Med Inform 2020; 143: 104239
  • 15 Krenitsky NM, Spiegelman J, Sutton D, Syeda S, Moroz L. Primed for a pandemic: Implementation of telehealth outpatient monitoring for women with mild COVID-19. Semin Perinatol 2020; 44 (07) 151285
  • 16 Keesara S, Jonas A, Schulman K. Covid-19 and health care's digital revolution. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (23) e82
  • 17 Uscher-Pines L, Sousa J, Raja P, Mehrotra A, Barnett ML, Huskamp HA. Suddenly becoming a “virtual doctor”: experiences of psychiatrists transitioning to telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatr Serv 2020; 71 (11) 1143-1150
  • 18 Charness G, Gneezy U, Kuhn MA. Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design. J Econ Behav Organ 2012; 81 (01) 1-8
  • 19 Cox A, Lucas G, Marcu A. et al. Cancer survivors' experience with telehealth: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19 (01) e11
  • 20 Han H, Yu J, Kim W. An electric airplane: assessing the effect of travelers' perceived risk, attitude, and new product knowledge. J Air Transp Manage 2019; 78: 33-42
  • 21 Zhou L, Thieret R, Watzlaf V, Dealmeida D, Parmanto B. A telehealth privacy and security self-assessment questionnaire for telehealth providers: development and validation. Int J Telerehabil 2019; 11 (01) 3-14
  • 22 Zaidan BB, Haiqi A, Zaidan AA, Abdulnabi M, Kiah ML, Muzamel H. A security framework for nationwide health information exchange based on telehealth strategy. J Med Syst 2015; 39 (05) 51
  • 23 De Pietro C, Francetic I. E-health in Switzerland: the laborious adoption of the federal law on electronic health records (EHR) and health information exchange (HIE) networks. Health Policy 2018; 122 (02) 69-74
  • 24 Jennett P, Yeo M, Pauls M, Graham J. Organizational readiness for telemedicine: implications for success and failure. J Telemed Telecare 2003; 9 (Suppl. 02) S27-S30
  • 25 Tuckson RV, Edmunds M, Hodgkins ML. Telehealth. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (16) 1585-1592
  • 26 Onor ML, Misan S. The clinical interview and the doctor-patient relationship in telemedicine. Telemed J E Health 2005; 11 (01) 102-105
  • 27 Kissi J, Dai B, Dogbe CS, Banahene J, Ernest O. Predictive factors of physicians' satisfaction with telemedicine services acceptance. Health Informatics J 2020; 26 (03) 1866-1880
  • 28 Noel HC, Vogel DC, Erdos JJ, Cornwall D, Levin F. Home telehealth reduces healthcare costs. Telemed J E Health 2004; 10 (02) 170-183
  • 29 Park J, Erikson C, Han X, Iyer P. Are state telehealth policies associated with the use of telehealth services among underserved populations?. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018; 37 (12) 2060-2068
  • 30 Paolacci G, Chandler J. Inside the Turk: understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2014; 23 (03) 184-188
  • 31 Narayanan A. A review of eight software packages for structural equation modeling. Am Stat 2012; 66 (02) 129-138
  • 32 Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 2011; 19 (02) 139-152
  • 33 Lu L, Zhang J, Xie Y. et al. Wearable health devices in health care: narrative systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020; 8 (11) e18907
  • 34 Baum A, Kaboli PJ, Schwartz MD. Reduced in-person and increased telehealth outpatient visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med 2021; 174 (01) 129-131
  • 35 Sabbagh R, Shah N, Jenkins S. et al. The COVID-19 pandemic and follow-up for shoulder surgery: the impact of a shift toward telemedicine on validated patient-reported outcomes. J Telemed Telecare 2021; (e-pub ahead of print) DOI: 10.1177/1357633X21990997.
  • 36 Contreras CM, Metzger GA, Beane JD, Dedhia PH, Ejaz A, Pawlik TM. Telemedicine: patient-provider clinical engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. J Gastrointest Surg 2020; 24 (07) 1692-1697
  • 37 Agha Z, Schapira RM, Laud PW, McNutt G, Roter DL. Patient satisfaction with physician-patient communication during telemedicine. Telemed J E Health 2009; 15 (09) 830-839
  • 38 Remuzzi A, Remuzzi G. COVID-19 and Italy: what next?. Lancet 2020; 395 (10231): 1225-1228
  • 39 Norden JG, Wang JX, Desai SA, Cheung L. Utilizing a novel unified healthcare model to compare practice patterns between telemedicine and in-person visits. Digit Health 2020; 6: 2055207620958528
  • 40 Mileski M, Kruse CS, Catalani J, Haderer T. Adopting telemedicine for the self-management of hypertension: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform 2017; 5 (04) e41
  • 41 Gordon HS, Solanki P, Bokhour BG, Gopal RK. “I'm not feeling like I'm part of the conversation” patients' perspectives on communicating in clinical video Telehealth visits. J Gen Intern Med 2020; 35 (06) 1751-1758
  • 42 Qian W, Lam TT-N, Lam HHW, Li C-K, Cheung YT. Telehealth interventions for improving self-management in patients with hemophilia: scoping review of clinical studies. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (07) e12340
  • 43 Locke ER, Thomas RM, Woo DM. et al. Using video telehealth to facilitate inhaler training in rural patients with obstructive lung disease. Telemed J E Health 2019; 25 (03) 230-236
  • 44 Uscher-Pines L, Mehrotra A. Analysis of Teladoc use seems to indicate expanded access to care for patients without prior connection to a provider. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014; 33 (02) 258-264
  • 45 Gan K, Liu Y, Stagg B, Rathi S, Pasquale LR, Damji K. Telemedicine for glaucoma: guidelines and recommendations. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26 (04) 551-555
  • 46 Kaplan B, Litewka S. Ethical challenges of telemedicine and telehealth. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2008; 17 (04) 401-416
  • 47 Gogia S. ed. Telesupport for the primary care practitioner. In: Fundamentals of Telemedicine and Telehealth. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2020: 161-183
  • 48 Barnett ML, Ray KN, Souza J, Mehrotra A. Trends in telemedicine use in a large commercially insured population, 2005–2017. JAMA 2018; 320 (20) 2147-2149
  • 49 Thomas EE, Haydon HM, Mehrotra A. et al. Building on the momentum: sustaining telehealth beyond COVID-19. J Telemed Telecare 2020; (e-pub ahead of print) DOI: 10.1177/1357633X20960638.
  • 50 Lee I, Kovarik C, Tejasvi T, Pizarro M, Lipoff JB. Telehealth: helping your patients and practice survive and thrive during the COVID-19 crisis with rapid quality implementation. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 82 (05) 1213-1214
  • 51 Steindal SA, Nes AAG, Godskesen TE. et al. Patients' experiences of telehealth in palliative home care: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (05) e16218
  • 52 Tsami L, Lerman D, Toper-Korkmaz O. Effectiveness and acceptability of parent training via telehealth among families around the world. J Appl Behav Anal 2019; 52 (04) 1113-1129