Human Connection and Technology Connectivity: A Systematic Review of Available Telehealth Survey Instruments.

2020 
Abstract Context The current upsurge in telehealth use in palliative and hospice care warrants consideration of patient, family caregiver, and interdisciplinary palliative perspectives on telehealth modality and communication experiences. Currently, telehealth experiences and encounters are being described but not yet extensively evaluated by palliative care teams. Objectives To locate survey instruments available to assess telehealth interactions, to determine the content and constructs covered by the available instruments, and to describe the patient populations previously surveyed by the existing instruments. Methods This study and its reporting followed PRISMA guidelines with the protocol registered in PROSPERO. Three databases were searched with over 3,100 articles analyzed for use of a telehealth survey instrument. Results Twelve telehealth communication assessment instruments were identified with mean length 20 questions, primarily Likert-scale responses with one inclusive of free-text and one qualitative inquiry survey. Three inquired only into modality, four queried communication, and five studied both modality and communication experience. Existing telehealth survey instruments are uni-directional in exploring patient or family experience with two inclusive of provider perspectives. Participant demographics are notably under-reported in telehealth experience studies with a frank lack of diversity in ethnic/racial, geographic, age, educational, and income representativeness in current telehealth survey instrument respondents. Conclusion Palliative care teams may consider familiarity with telehealth survey instrument as an essential component to progress from description of telehealth use to evaluation of telehealth encounters. Current survey instrument outcome reports do not represent inclusivity or diversity, although telehealth is now being clinically applied across settings.
    • Correction
    • Source
    • Cite
    • Save
    • Machine Reading By IdeaReader
    75
    References
    5
    Citations
    NaN
    KQI
    []