| Literature DB >> 29678189 |
Seo-Joon Lee1, Tae-Young Jung2, Tae-Ro Lee3, Jae-Hoon Han4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: South Korean government is currently in progress of expanding the coverage of telemedicine projects as part of an attempt to vitalize service industry, but is facing fierce opposition from KMA. Practice of telemedicine requires sufficient discussions among related parties. Although the participation of medical specialists is important, agreement from the public is essential.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiology; Electrocardiography; Perception; Telemedicine; Tertiary care centers
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29678189 PMCID: PMC5910594 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3105-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants
| Factor | Category | Weighted (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 19 to 29 | 11.70 | 31 |
| 30 to 39 | 21.13 | 56 | |
| 40 to 49 | 23.02 | 61 | |
| 50 to 59 | 17.36 | 46 | |
| 60 or older | 26.79 | 71 | |
| Academic level | Middle school | 10.94 | 29 |
| High school | 14.34 | 38 | |
| Undergraduate | 51.32 | 136 | |
| Graduate or higher | 23.40 | 62 | |
| Incomea | < 1 mil | 10.70 | 31 |
| 1 mil ≤ < 2 mil | 12.83 | 34 | |
| 2 mil ≤ < 3 mil | 32.45 | 86 | |
| 3 mil ≤ < 4 mil | 17.36 | 46 | |
| 4 mil ≤ < 5 mil | 12.83 | 34 | |
| ≥ 5 mil | 12.83 | 34 | |
| Gender | Male | 57.36 | 152 |
| Female | 42.64 | 113 | |
| Location | Seoul | 57.74 | 153 |
| Gyeonggi | 16.98 | 45 | |
| Others | 25.28 | 69 | |
| Type of participant | Patient | 67.92 | 180 |
| Patient guardian | 16.60 | 44 | |
| Nurse | 6.79 | 18 | |
| Doctor | 3.77 | 10 | |
| Others | 4.92 | 13 | |
| Perceived socio-economic status | Lower class | 6.79 | 18 |
| Lower-middle class | 15.09 | 40 | |
| Middle class | 54.34 | 144 | |
| Middle-upper class | 18.87 | 50 | |
| Upper class | 4.91 | 13 | |
| Total | 100 | 265 |
aThe currency is in Korean won; 1 mil = 1,000,000 Korean won
Perception of the current electrocardiography testing system by type of participant
| Factor | Category | Status ( | Subtotal ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient and guardian | Nurse | Doctor | Others | |||
| Usage experience | Yes | 161 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 188 |
| No | 63 | 8 | – | 6 | 77 | |
| Degree of knowledge | Very much | 18 | 8 | 6 | – | 32 |
| Much | 47 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 56 | |
| Average | 61 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 69 | |
| Little | 76 | 1 | – | 6 | 83 | |
| None | 22 | 2 | – | 1 | 25 | |
| Perceived need | Very much | 44 | 12 | 7 | 1 | 64 |
| Much | 69 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 81 | |
| Average | 75 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 83 | |
| Little | 18 | – | – | – | 18 | |
| None | 18 | – | 1 | – | 19 | |
Perception of a remote electrocardiography monitoring system by type of participant
| Factor | Category | Status ( | Subtotal ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient and guardian | Nurse | Doctor | Others | |||
| Perceived need | Very much | 27 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 34 |
| Much | 119 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 137 | |
| Average | 63 | 4 | 6 | – | 73 | |
| Little | 12 | 6 | – | – | 18 | |
| None | 3 | – | – | – | 3 | |
| Most important featurea | Home monitoring | 106 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 126 |
| Monitoring while out | 51 | 5 | – | 1 | 57 | |
| Monitoring all the time | 57 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 66 | |
| Other | 8 | 6 | – | – | 14 | |
| Usage intentions | Yes | 168 | 10 | 5 | 11 | 194 |
| No | 56 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 71 | |
| Desired service provider | Government | 62 | 2 | – | 4 | 68 |
| Hospitals | 147 | 13 | 10 | 8 | 178 | |
| No matter | 15 | 3 | – | 1 | 19 | |
| Desired main agenta | Public institution | 181 | 12 | – | 10 | 203 |
| Private institution | 43 | 6 | 10 | 2 | 61 | |
| Development barriersa | Low IT | 42 | 8 | – | 6 | 56 |
| Lack of advertisement | 62 | 3 | 1 | – | 66 | |
| Lack of knowledge | 58 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 65 | |
| Fear of low personal information security | 53 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 66 | |
| Other | 8 | – | 1 | 2 | 11 | |
aThis category involves missing values. IT information technology
Perceived need for a remote electrocardiography monitoring system by location
| Factor | Category | Status* | Subtotal | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seoul | Gyeonggi | Gangwon | Chungcheong | Jeonla | Gyeongsang | |||
| Perceived need | Very Much | 16 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 2 | – | 34 |
| Much | 85 | 14 | 6 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 137 | |
| Average | 39 | 17 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 73 | |
| Little | 10 | 4 | 2 | – | 1 | 1 | 18 | |
| None | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | |
*Jeju was excluded as there were no participants from this location