Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare > Volume 14, Number 6 > Pp. 306-308

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Palmas, W. Articles by Shea, S. PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

RESEARCH Original articles

Acceptability to primary care providers of telemedicine in diabetes case management

Walter Palmas ^* , Jeanne Teresi , Ruth S Weinstock   and Steven Shea ^* ** 

^* Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York; Research Division, Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale, Bronx, New York; Joslin Diabetes Center and Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York; Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Medical Center, Syracuse, New York; ^** Department of Epidemiology, Joseph Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, USA

Correspondence: Dr Walter Palmas, Division of General Medicine, 622 W 168th Street, PH 9-East, New York, NY 10032, USA (Fax: +1 212 305 9349; Email: wp56{at}columbia.edu)

We studied the perceptions of primary care providers (PCPs) about the telemedicine intervention in a trial of telemedicine for management of diabetes in medically under-served areas of New York State. A survey was mailed to 206 rural and 159 urban PCPs. The response rates were 25% and 22%, respectively. Eighty percent of respondents believed that a diabetes telemedicine case management system would help their practice. An overall satisfaction score (possible range 0–80) suggested good acceptability (mean 66, SD 12). In multiple linear regression, the rural location and younger age of the PCPs were independent predictors of higher satisfaction (both P < 0.01). Within-PCP comparisons showed a higher perceived impact on patients, as compared to impact on PCP practices (P < 0.001). However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the low response rates.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?