Exploring Public Perceptions of Telenursing: A Q Methodology Study.
Ick-Jee Kim
PMID 39530267WHAT IT FOUND
Public views of telenursing split into five types, from full support to full skepticism.
Many valued convenience and access but worried about missed subtle changes, emergencies, physical care, trust and privacy.
Key findings
01Public perceptions of telenursing formed five types, from complete support to complete skepticism.
02Some participants strongly agreed telenursing could overlook subtle changes, may be insufficient in emergencies, and has limitations in providing physical care.
03Several participants viewed telenursing as a supplement to face-to-face nursing rather than a replacement.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This study reports perceptions, not patient outcomes, so it cannot show whether telenursing works. It was done only in South Korea, so public views may differ elsewhere. 16 of the 49 participants were not classified into any perception type, so their views are not represented in the factor descriptions. Factor III included two nurses, two nursing students and one doctor, so some provider views are mixed into the public perception results. The 37 statements were selected and reduced by the researcher and experts, so other aspects of telenursing may not have been captured.
Declared interests
The author declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these perception types as evidence that telenursing improves patient outcomes. The study asked participants to sort statements about telenursing before it was widely introduced, and it did not test care delivered to patients.