METHODS: A survey was provided to participants within a German county. It was based on telemedical surveys, the System Usabilty Scale (SUS) and earlier works describing Usability, Acceptability and Effectiveness. Meanwhile a telemedical system was introduced in the investigated county. A comparison between user-groups aswell as an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed.
RESULTS: Of n = 91 included participants n = 73 (80,2%) were qualified as emergency medical staff (including paramedics n = 36 (39,56%), EMTs n = 28 (30,77%), call handlers n = 9 (9,89%)) and n = 18 (19,8%) as emergency physicians. Most participants approved that telemedicine positively impacts EM and improved treatment options with an overall Usabilty Score of 68,68. EFA provided a 3-factor solution involving Usability, Acceptability and Effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: With our results being comparable to earlier studies but telemedicine only having being sparsely introduced, a positive attitude could still be attested. While our model describes 51,28% of the underlying factors, more research is needed to identify further influences. We showed that Usability is correlated with Acceptability (strong effect), Usability and Effectiveness with a medium effect, likewise Acceptability and Effectiveness. Therefore available systems need to improve. Our approach can be a guide for decision makers and developers, that a focus during implementation must be on improving usability and on a valid data driven implementation process.
方法:向德国一个县的参与者提供了一项调查。它是基于远程医疗调查,系统可用性量表(SUS)和早期描述可用性的作品,可接受性和有效性。同时,在被调查的县引入了远程医疗系统。进行了用户组之间的比较以及探索性因素分析(EFA)。
结果:在n=91的参与者中,n=73(80,2%)符合急救医务人员的资格(包括护理人员n=36(39,56%),急救人员n=28(30,77%),呼叫处理人员n=9(9,89%))和n=18(19,8%)作为急诊医生。大多数参与者批准,远程医疗对EM产生了积极影响,并改善了治疗方案,总体Usabilty评分为68,68。EFA提供了一个涉及可用性的三因素解决方案,可接受性和有效性。
结论:我们的研究结果与早期的研究相当,但远程医疗只被稀疏地引入,积极的态度仍然可以证明。虽然我们的模型描述了51.28%的潜在因素,需要更多的研究来确定进一步的影响。我们表明可用性与可接受性(强效应)相关,具有中等效果的可用性和有效性,同样是可接受性和有效性。因此,可用的系统需要改进。我们的方法可以为决策者和开发人员提供指导,实施过程中的重点必须是提高可用性和有效的数据驱动实施过程。