Barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth by healthcare providers in India—A systematic review

It is widely assumed that telehealth tools like mHealth (mobile health), telemedicine, and tele-education can supplement the efficiency of Healthcare Providers (HCPs). We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the barriers and facilitators associated with the use of telehealth by HCPs in India. A systematic literature search following a pre-registered protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KQ3U9 [PROTOCOL DOI]) was conducted on PubMed. The search strategy, inclusion, and exclusion criteria were based on the World Health Organization's action framework on Human Resources for Health (HRH) and Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in India with a specific focus on telehealth tools. Eligible articles published in English from 1st January 2001 to 17th February 2022 were included. One hundred and six studies were included in the review. Of these, 53 studies (50%) involved mHealth interventions, 25 (23.6%) involved telemedicine interventions whereas the remaining 28 (26.4%) involved the use of tele-education interventions by HCPs in India. In each category, most of the studies followed a quantitative study design and were mostly published in the last 5 years. The study sites were more commonly present in states in south India. The facilitators and barriers related to each type of intervention were analyzed under the following sub-headings- 1) Human resource related, 2) Application related 3) Technical, and 4) Others. The interventions were most commonly used for improving the management of mental health, non-communicable diseases, and maternal and child health. The use of telehealth has not been uniformly studied in India. The facilitators and barriers to telehealth use need to be kept in mind while designing the intervention. Future studies should focus on looking at region-specific, intervention-specific, and health cadre-specific barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLOS Digital Health
Published
2024-12-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000398
Citations
13
Primary Topic
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.06
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth by healthcare providers in India—A systematic review

Parth Sharma, Preethi John, Shirish Rao, S Prakash et al.
13 citations
PLOS Digital Health
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
7.06
article

Barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth by healthcare providers in India—A systematic review

Parth Sharma, Preethi John, Shirish Rao, S Prakash, Disha Agrawal, Rachna George Joseph, Girish Dayma, Aiswarya R. Nair, Siddhesh Zadey, Gayathri Surendran, Vikram Patel, Sitanshi Sharma, Venkatesan Sankarapandian, Padmavathy Krishna Kumar, Shubhashis Saha, Liya Rafeekh
article en
13 citations

Abstract

It is widely assumed that telehealth tools like mHealth (mobile health), telemedicine, and tele-education can supplement the efficiency of Healthcare Providers (HCPs). We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the barriers and facilitators associated with the use of telehealth by HCPs in India. A systematic literature search following a pre-registered protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KQ3U9 [PROTOCOL DOI]) was conducted on PubMed. The search strategy, inclusion, and exclusion criteria were based on the World Health Organization's action framework on Human Resources for Health (HRH) and Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in India with a specific focus on telehealth tools. Eligible articles published in English from 1st January 2001 to 17th February 2022 were included. One hundred and six studies were included in the review. Of these, 53 studies (50%) involved mHealth interventions, 25 (23.6%) involved telemedicine interventions whereas the remaining 28 (26.4%) involved the use of tele-education interventions by HCPs in India. In each category, most of the studies followed a quantitative study design and were mostly published in the last 5 years. The study sites were more commonly present in states in south India. The facilitators and barriers related to each type of intervention were analyzed under the following sub-headings- 1) Human resource related, 2) Application related 3) Technical, and 4) Others. The interventions were most commonly used for improving the management of mental health, non-communicable diseases, and maternal and child health. The use of telehealth has not been uniformly studied in India. The facilitators and barriers to telehealth use need to be kept in mind while designing the intervention. Future studies should focus on looking at region-specific, intervention-specific, and health cadre-specific barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth.

PLOS Digital HealthVol. 3(12)
Harvard University (US), Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (IN), Duke University (US), Christian Medical College, Vellore (IN), King Edward Memorial Hospital and Seth G.S. Medical College (IN), Maulana Azad Medical College (IN), Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre (IN), Society for Applied Studies (IN), Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune (IN), Christian Medical College (IN), Duke Institute for Health Innovation (US), Society for Community Health Awareness Research and Action (IN), University College London (GB), Institute of Medical Sciences (IN), Columbia University (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
7.06
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.