Barriers Leading to the Discontinuance of Telemedicine among Healthcare Providers: A Systematic Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2025440Keywords:
Telemedicine, discontinuance, healthcare providers, socio technological barriers, behavioral and institutional factorsAbstract
Introduction:
Telemedicine, once considered a groundbreaking innovation in healthcare, has seen a marked decline in usage, highlighting numerous barriers to its continued adoption. This systematic review aims to identify and analyze the socio-technological, individual, institutional, and behavioral factors that contribute to the discontinuance of telemedicine among healthcare providers.
Methods:
A comprehensive search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted, identifying 1,070 peer-reviewed articles published between 2020 and 2024. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 studies were selected for detailed analysis.
Results:
Several socio-technological barriers were identified, including issues with system usability, unreliable infrastructure, and a lack of interoperability, all of which hinder the seamless integration of telemedicine into clinical workflows. Additionally, individual-level factors such as low technological self-efficacy, anxiety, and concerns about the depersonalization of care emerged as significant challenges. Institutional barriers, such as insufficient training, inadequate resource allocation, and high workloads, further complicate the adoption of telemedicine. Behavioral resistance, including reluctance to change and fears related to compliance and professional identity, also exacerbated the challenges faced by healthcare providers.
Conclusions:
Addressing the identified barriers requires a multifaceted approach. Technological improvements, enhanced usability, and targeted interventions aimed at reducing psychological resistance and improving institutional support are essential to promoting the sustained use of telemedicine in healthcare.
References
1. Walczak R, Kludacz-Alessandri M, Hawrysz L. Use of Telemedicine Technology among General Practitioners during COVID-19: A Modified Technology Acceptance Model Study in Poland. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19(17).
2. Jacob C, Sanchez-Vazquez A, Ivory C. Factors impacting clinicians’ adoption of a clinical photo documentation app and its implications for clinical workflows and quality of care: Qualitative case study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8(9).
3. Ong AKS, Kurata YB, Castro SADG, De Leon JPB, Dela Rosa H V., Tomines APJ. Factors influencing the acceptance of telemedicine in the Philippines. Technol Soc 2022;70.
4. Ly BA, Labonté R, Bourgeault IL, Niang MN. The individual and contextual determinants of the use of telemedicine: A descriptive study of the perceptions of Senegal’s physicians and telemedicine projects managers. PLoS One 2017;12(7).
5. Palas JU, Sorwar G, Hoque MR, Sivabalan A. Factors influencing the elderly’s adoption of mHealth: an empirical study using extended UTAUT2 model. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2022;22(1).
6. Pillay L, Govender R, Pillay S. South African Family Practice. 2021;Available from: https://www.safpj.co.za
7. Wu D, Gu H, Gu S, You H. Individual motivation and social influence: a study of telemedicine adoption in China based on social cognitive theory. Health Policy Technol 2021;10(3).
8. Pagliari C. Digital health and primary care: Past, pandemic and prospects. J Glob Health 2021;11:1–9.
9. Chandrasekaran R. Telemedicine in the Post-Pandemic Period: Understanding Patterns of Use and the Influence of Socioeconomic Demographics, Health Status, and Social Determinants. Telemedicine and e-Health 2024;30(2):480–9.
10. Sanjula Jain. Trends Shaping the Health Economy_ Telehealth (3). 2022.
11. Aas IHM. A qualitative study of the organizational consequences of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2001;7(1):18–26.
12. Mohammad Zobair K, Sanzogni L, Houghton L, Sandhu K, Jahirul Islam M. Research Article Health Seekers’ Acceptance & Adoption Determinants. 2021.
13. Tan SH, Wong CK, Yap YY, Tan SK. Factors influencing telemedicine adoption among physicians in the Malaysian healthcare system: A revisit. Digit Health 2024;10.
14. Kansiime WK, Atusingwize E, Ndejjo R, Balinda E, Ntanda M, Mugambe RK, et al. Barriers and benefits of mHealth for community health workers in integrated community case management of childhood diseases in Banda Parish, Kampala, Uganda: a cross-sectional study. BMC Primary Care 2024;25(1).
15. Ye J. Transforming and facilitating health care delivery through social networking platforms: evidences and implications from WeChat. JAMIA Open 2024;7(2).
16. Bhaskar S, Bradley S, Chattu VK, Adisesh A, Nurtazina A, Kyrykbayeva S, et al. Telemedicine as the New Outpatient Clinic Gone Digital: Position Paper From the Pandemic Health System REsilience PROGRAM (REPROGRAM) International Consortium (Part 2). Front Public Health 2020;8.
17. Meyer AJ, Armstrong-Hough M, Babirye D, Mark D, Turimumahoro P, Ayakaka I, et al. Implementing mhealth interventions in a resource-constrained setting: Case study from Uganda. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8(7).
18. Ghazal H, Alshammari A, Taweel A, ElBokl A, Nejjari C, Alhuwail D, et al. Information on IMIA Regional Groups Middle East and North African Health Informatics Association (MENAHIA): Inclusive Digital Health in MENA Region [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.urac.
19. Maleka NH, Matli W. A review of telehealth during the COVID-19 emergency situation in the public health sector: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 2024;15(4):707–24.
20. Nan J, Jia R, Meng S, Jin Y, Chen W, Hu H. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Importance of Telemedicine in Managing Acute ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients: Preliminary Experience and Literature Review The COVID-19 pandemic impact on STEMI patient management. JournalofMedicalSystems [Internet] 2020;Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-020-01703-6
21. Soltanzadeh L, Babazadeh Sangar A, Majidzadeh K. The review of usability evaluation methods on telehealth or telemedicine systems. Frontiers in Health Informatics 2022;11.
22. Reinhardt G, Schwarz PEH, Harst L. Non-use of telemedicine: A scoping review. Health Informatics J 2021;27(4).
23. Jacob J, Wan F, Jin A. Is telemedicine worth the effort? A study on the impact of effort cost on healthcare platform with heterogeneous preferences. Comput Ind Eng 2023;109854.
24. Park HS, Jeong S, Chung H young, Soh JY, Hyun YH, Bang SH, et al. Use of video-based telehealth services using a mobile app for workers in underserved areas during the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective observational study. Int J Med Inform 2022;166.
25. Ye J. Health Information System’s Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic in China: A National Cross-sectional Study. Appl Clin Inform 2021;12(2):399–406.
26. Delemere E, Gitonga I, Maguire R. Utility, barriers and facilitators to the use of connected health to support families impacted by paediatric cancer: a qualitative analysis. Supportive Care in Cancer 2022;30(8):6755–66.
27. Muller E, Huysmans MA, van Rijssen HJ, Anema JR. Needs, expectations, facilitators, and barriers among insurance physicians related to the use of eHealth in their work: results of a survey. Disabil Rehabil 2024;46(11):2374–84.
28. Turner K, Babilonia MB, Naso C, Nguyen O, Gonzalez BD, Oswald LB, et al. Health Care Providers’ and Professionals’ Experiences With Telehealth Oncology Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res 2022;24(1).
29. Torp DC, Sandbæk A, Prætorius T. The Technology Acceptance of Video Consultations for Type 2 Diabetes Care in General Practice: Cross-sectional Survey of Danish General Practitioners. J Med Internet Res 2022;24(8).
30. Reynolds A, Awan N, Gallagher P. Physiotherapists’ perspective of telehealth during the Covid-19 pandemic. Int J Med Inform 2021;156.
31. Chew E, Teo SH, Tang WE, Ng DWL, Koh GCH, Teo VHY. Trust and Uncertainty in the Implementation of a Pilot Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring Program in Primary Care: Qualitative Study of Patient and Health Care Professional Views. JMIR Hum Factors 2023;10.
32. Brouns B, Van Bodegom-Vos L, De Kloet AJ, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Gil ILC, Souza LMN, et al. Differences in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke; A cross-sectional comparison between Brazilian and Dutch healthcare professionals. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20(1).
33. Bos WH, van Tubergen A, Vonkeman HE. Telemedicine for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic; a positive experience in the Netherlands. Rheumatol Int 2021;41(3):565–73.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Michelle Bernabe, Ryan Ebardo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.