Barriers and Facilitators for the Use of Telehealth by Healthcare Providers (HCP) in India - A Scoping Review

Parth Sharma, Shirish Rao, Padmavathy Krishna Kumar, Aiswarya R Nair, Disha Agrawal, Siddhesh Zadey, S Gayathri, Rachna George Joseph, Girish Dayma, Liya Rafeekh, Shubhashis Saha, Sitanshi Sharma, SS Prakash, Venkatesan Sankarapandian, Preethi John, Vikram Patel
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.28.23297653

Abstract

Background It is widely assumed that telehealth tools like mHealth, telemedicine, and tele-education can supplement the efficiency of Healthcare Providers (HCPs). We conducted a scoping review of evidence on the barriers and facilitators associated with the use of telehealth by HCPs in India.

Methods A systematic literature search following a pre-registered protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KQ3U9 [PROTOCOL DOI]) was conducted in 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 in India with a specific focus on telehealth tools. Eligible articles published in English from 1st January 2001 to 17th February 2022 were included.

Results 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 present 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.

Conclusions 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.

Introduction

Telehealth is defined “as the delivery and facilitation of health and health-related services including medical care, provider and patient education, health information services, and self-care via telecommunications and digital communication technologies.”(1) Even though used interchangeably, telehealth and telemedicine are not the same. Telehealth covers a wide range of services like telemedicine, mHealth, and remote patient monitoring. Telemedicine refers to the delivery of diagnostic or treatment services to a patient using telecommunication technology remotely. (1) mHealth on the other hand refers to applications or programs used on smartphones or tablets. (1) These interventions could be used to address the shortage of human resources for health (HRH), for education and training of HCPs, or for supporting the functioning of the existing health workforce.

Access to healthcare of adequate quality is inequitable in India which disproportionately affects(2) rural and low-resourced states, where a majority of the Indian population resides. (3) Access is worse for those belonging to vulnerable groups like the elderly, and people with disability. (4) A major driver for this inequitable access is the inequitable distribution of human resources for health (HRH). (5) These barriers have resulted in the rapid privatization of healthcare in India,(6) thus making healthcare a leading cause of out-of-pocket expenditure. (7) It is widely assumed that inequitable access to quality care could be addressed by telehealth interventions like mHealth and telemedicine and also help in cutting the costs of healthcare. (8–10)

To enhance the uptake of digital health interventions, the World Health Organization (WHO) published its Global Strategy on Digital Health for 2020-2025. (11) In India, the National Health Policy (NHP) 2017 recommended the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) to improve access to health services. In recent years, there has been a mushrooming of a range of telehealth interventions in India, for example, mSakhi and ASHA Kirana(12,13) in antenatal and postnatal maternal care through patient monitoring and behavior change communication; for the care of people with non-communicable diseases(14); the eSanjeevani telemedicine portal to improve access to care in remote areas(15), and to train HRH. (16)

In the context of the significant place occupied by telehealth in national health policy and the multitude of telehealth interventions being piloted in different sectors and regions of the country, this review was conducted with the primary objective of understanding the facilitators, and barriers associated with the use of telehealth tools, like telemedicine, tele-education and mHealth, by HR in India. We also aimed to look at the role of telehealth in various aspects of the health system from service delivery, education, and training of HRHs, to its impact on their functioning and also their attitude toward the intervention.

Methods

Overview

This study is a scoping review conducted as one of the components of a larger evidence synthesis exercise undertaken by the Lancet Citizens’ Commission on Reimagining India’s Health System (www.citizenshealth.in). The protocol for evidence synthesis for the entire HRH workstream was registered on 16th June 2022. (17) It is in compliance with the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework(18) and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines (19) and can be accessed here-https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KQ3U9 [PROTOCOL DOI].

Search Strategy

The review was a part of the larger evidence synthesis work on HRH for UHC in India. The search was conducted for published literature between 1st January 2001 and 17th February 2022 in the PubMed database. The search strategy focused on the WHO action framework on HRH and diverse categories of medical professional cadres along with universal health care in India (S1 Panel).

Screening and Selection

All the articles identified through the search strategy using the above-mentioned database were added to the Distiller SR software and duplicates were removed. A multi-level screening of articles using DistillerSR software was carried out by the team as described in the PRISMA-ScR 2020 diagram (Fig 1). Inclusion criteria included studies conducted in India and reported in English that focused on the use of telehealth by healthcare providers. Studies only evaluating clinical outcomes but not related to HRH cadre or management strategies or practices and study protocols, editorials, viewpoints, commentaries, letters, and correspondences were excluded.

Fig 1:
Fig 1: PRISMA flowchart showing selection and inclusion of the studies in the review.

The articles were divided into a team of two reviewers. At Level 1, the articles were screened only based on the title and abstract. The articles included by any one reviewer at Level 1 screening were moved to Level 2. The full text of all the articles in Level 2 was reviewed independently by two reviewers. After the full-text screening, articles were finally excluded or included only if both reviewers were in agreement. Conflicts about the eligibility criteria were resolved either through consensus between the two reviewers or by consulting one more reviewer.

Data extraction and analysis

At Level 3, data charting for all the included full-text articles was done. Charting done by one author was verified by the other author. The data extracted included the following variables: Authors, Year of Publication, Study Design, Study Setting, Study Location, HR cadre, HR practice, Sample Size, Primary Objectives, Primary Outcomes, Impact, Challenges and barriers, and Study limitations. Articles were then classified based on the type of telehealth intervention into mHealth, telemedicine, and tele-education. A descriptive analysis of the included articles was conducted to understand barriers and facilitators of telehealth use.

Results

One hundred and six studies were included in the review. Of these, 53 studies (50%) involved mHealth interventions (13,20–71), 25 (23.6%) involved telemedicine interventions (72–96) whereas the remaining 28 (26.4%) involved the use of tele-education interventions by HCPs in India. (97–124)

mHealth

Of the total 53 studies, nearly half the studies (45%) were quantitative(21,26–28,31,33– 36,38,39,42,43,45,50,51,53,55,58,59,63,64,66,70), 14 (26%) were qualitative (13,20,22,29,32,37,44,46–48,60,65,67,69), 12 (23%) were mixed-methods (23–25,30,40,41,52,54,56,57,62,68) and 3 (6%) were review studies.(49,61,71) No study on the use of mHealth was published before 2013 and 64% (13,20–51,55) of the studies were published after 2018 with the maximum (n=12, 23%)(13,22,24–31,33,34) number of studies being published in 2021. The studies were conducted in tertiary care or teaching hospital settings (n=28)(22,23,26–29,31–38,46,47,49,55–59,61,63,65,68,69,71), community health centers (n=6)(20,21,42,44,60,66), primary health centers (n=16)(13,30,40,43,48,50–53),(39,54,62,64,66,67,70), and other settings (n=4). (24,25,41,45) The use of mHealth was most studied in Karnataka (n=7)(13,28,41,52,66,67,71), followed by Gujarat (21,38,44,58,65), Maharashtra (26,28,32,49,66), and Tamil Nadu (26,36,37,51,53) (5 studies each) (Fig 2). Findings from all included studies have been summarized in the S1 Table.

Fig 2:
Fig 2: The number of study sites per state in India for mHealth

mHealth interventions were most commonly used by doctors (n=38)(21–23,25–27,30,31,35– 38,40–45,47–50,52–54,56–62,64,65,68–71), followed by community healthcare workers (n=18)(22,28–30,32–34,36,39,41,44,46,49,51,58,63,66,67), nurses (n=8)(13,20,22,41,42,55,56,68), allied health professionals (n=4)(43,54,68,70), auxiliary midwife nurses (n=3)(22,36,41), and others (n=8). (24,29,36,46,54,62,64,68)

1. Facilitators and barriers to the use of mHealth

Prior training to use the mHealth intervention (n=19)(13,20,23,25,26,32,37,41,42,44,46,49,50,52,55,57,60,62,63), interactive intervention with the use of videos and images (n=14)(21,23,34,39–41,44–46,49,60,67–69), and availability of the device to use the intervention (n=6)(22,23,48,49,58,61) were the most common human resource-related, application-related, and technical facilitators respectively. Formative research prior to designing the intervention (n=4)(29,32,44,48) and government support for the intervention (n=2)(29,30) were other facilitators that were identified. Other facilitators are mentioned in Fig 3.

Fig 3:
Fig 3: Facilitators of use of mHealth

Low digital literacy (n=10)(13,22,26,32,38,41,44,46,65,69), malfunctioning of the software (n=13)(13,20–22,24,25,29,31,37,43,66,67,69), and poor network connectivity (n=14)(20–22,24,32,34,38,41,44,47,53,55,67,69) were the most common human resource-related, application-related, and technical barriers respectively. Stigma related to technology (n=4)(13,38,68,69), worsening of disease-related stigma due to the use of technology (n=3)(41,55,62), lack of formative research (n=1)(69), and lack of human touch due to the use of mhealth (n=1)(34) were other barriers that were identified. Other barriers are mentioned in Fig 4.

Fig 4:
Fig 4: Barriers to the use of mHealth

2. Role of mHealth

The mHealth interventions were most commonly used for improving maternal and child healthcare (n=24)(13,20,22–25,27,33,34,36,39–43,53,54,59,60,63,64,66–68), followed by non-communicable diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and cancer (n=12)(26,28,30,31,46,47,50–52,55,57,65) and mental health (n=6).(21,32,44,49,61,62) Based on the WHO action framework on HRH, 29 (55%) studies focused on Human Resource (HR) management and aimed at improving the efficiency of available human resources.(13,22–24,28–30,33,35–40,42,43,46,51,54,55,57,58,61,64–67,69,71) Twenty-three (43%) studies involved mHealth interventions that aimed at the education and training of HCPs.(20,21,25–27,31,32,34,41,44,45,47–50,52,53,59,60,62,63,68,70) Only one study looked at the financial aspect of the intervention’s use by the HCPs.(56)

3. Impact of mHealth Interventions and Attitude of HCPs towards Them

The use of mHealth impacted the practice of HCPs in various ways. Improvement in patient outcome was reported in 22 studies (20,24,28,33,36,39–43,46,47,49,51,53,54,60–63,69,71), improvement in knowledge of HCP in 18 studies (13,20,21,23,27,29,36,41,44,45,53,55,59,62,65,68–70), and improvement in work performance of HCP in 24 studies (13,20,22,23–25,29,33,38,40,41–43,45,46,48,52– 54,59,65,67,69,71). Studies also reported an improvement in confidence (n=7)(13,20,23,42,46,52,68) and communication (n=7)(13,40,41,43,50,54,58) while using mHealth interventions. The other impacts are mentioned in Table 2.

View this table:
Table 2: Impact of telehealth interventions

Out of the 53 studies, 26 studies reported positive attitudes of HCPs toward mHealth interventions (13,22,25,26,29,31,32,34–38,40–46,49,52,53,55,58,68,69) whereas 1 study reported a negative attitude (65) and the remaining did not mention the attitude of the HCP toward the intervention. Nine studies reported that the HCP was satisfied with the intervention (24,29,31,32,43,54,55,61,68) and in two studies HCP mentioned that they would recommend the intervention to others. (23,31)

4. Limitations of studies assessing the use of mHealth

Studies evaluating the use of mHealth interventions commonly cited inadequate sample size (n=10)(21,29,32,38–40,44,62,64,69), poor sampling techniques (n=9)(26,36,38– 40,44,62,64,69), and incomplete data (n=7)(33,39,40,42,47,50,63) as limitations. Desirability bias, as mentioned in 8 studies (20,21,23,25,32,36,39,64), could have resulted in a more positive outcome of the interventions being studied. Other limitations of studies are mentioned in Table 3.

View this table:
Table 3: Limitations of studies included in the review

Telemedicine

Twenty-one studies (84%) were quantitative (72–77,79–82,84–89,91,93–96), 2 (8%) were qualitative (78,83), 1 (4%) followed mixed methodology (90) and 1 (4%) was a review study.(92) No study on the use of telemedicine by human resources for health (HRH) was published before 2011. A majority (64%)(74–78,82,84–87,89,91–93,95,96) of the studies were published after 2017 with the maximum (n=5, 20%)(75,77,84,86,91) number of studies being published in 2020. Nearly all the studies were conducted in tertiary care settings or teaching hospital settings (92%)(72,73,75–88,90–96), and only 1 study each was conducted in primary health centers (81), community health centers (73), HIV clinics (74), and non-governmental organization clinics. (89) The use of telemedicine interventions was most studied in Karnataka (n=5)(72,75,77,94,96) followed by Andhra Pradesh (n=3)(73,76,93) and Bihar (n=2).(86,87) (Fig 5) Findings from all included studies have been summarized in the S2 Table.

Fig 5:
Fig 5: The number of study sites per state in India for telemedicine

Telehealth was most commonly used by doctors (n=19)(72–77,79,80,82,83,85– 88,90,91,93,94,96) and focussed more on nurses (n=5)(82,84,86,89,96) than community healthcare workers (n=3)(72,77,95), allied health professionals (n=2)(72,89), and auxiliary midwife nurses (n=2). (72,81)

1. Facilitators and barriers to the use of telemedicine

Prior training to use the telemedicine intervention (n=2)(75,93), use of local language(n=1)(89), and additional technical support (n=1)(76) were identified to be the human resource-related facilitators. The availability of satellite connectivity (n=1)(88) was a technical facilitator that improved the uptake of telemedicine. Cost-effectiveness (n=7)(74,75,78,85,87,93,94), and ease of use of the intervention (n=1)(92) were the application-related facilitators. (Fig 6)

Fig 6:
Fig 6: Facilitators of use of telemedicine

Poor network connectivity (n=8)(73,76,81,84,87,92,94,96), difficulty in understanding English, the language used in the application (n=5)(84,86,87,92,93), and difficulty in communicating while using telemedicine (n=6)(76,83,86,87,93,95) were the most common technical, application-related, and human resource-related barriers respectively. Lack of human touch (n=5)(77,80,83,91,95) and stigma related to technology (n=1)(94) also acted as barriers to the uptake of telemedicine. Other barriers are mentioned in Fig 7.

Fig 7:
Fig 7: Barriers to the use of telemedicine

2. Role of telemedicine

Telemedicine was most commonly used for providing treatment for conditions related to maternal and child health (n=5)(76,80,82,84,86), non-communicable diseases (n=3)(88,91,94) like diabetes, hypertension, and cancer, and mental health (n=3).(77,78,95) While most studies focused on improving the efficiency and performance of the HRH (n=23)(73–89,91–96), 1 study focused on the knowledge and awareness regarding telemedicine in the HCPs(72) and 1 study addressed the policy and financial aspects of telemedicine.(90)

3. Impact of telemedicine interventions and attitude of HCP towards them

Improvement in patient outcome (n=16)(74–78,81,82,85–87,89,91–94,96), improvement in knowledge of HCP (n=3)(76,85,89), and improvement in work performance (n=3)(76,85,92) were associated with the use of telemedicine. It also helped in reducing travel (n=4)(78,91,92,94) and when used for remote diagnosis, telemedicine showed no significant diagnostic difference when compared with conventional diagnostic modalities (n=3)(79,88,92). The other impacts are mentioned in Table 2.

Out of the 25 studies, 13 studies reported positive attitudes of HCPs toward telemedicine interventions (76–78,83,85–87,91–96) whereas 1 study reported a negative attitude (90) and the remaining did not mention the attitude of the HCP toward the intervention. Twelve studies reported that the HCP was satisfied with the intervention (76,77,82–84,86,87,91– 94,96) and in 2 studies HCPs mentioned that they would recommend the intervention to others. (86,87)

4. Limitations of studies assessing the use of telemedicine

Inadequate sample size (n=4)(74,81,85,86), poor study design (n=4)(80–82,96), and poor sampling techniques (n=2)(72,73) were the most commonly cited limitations in the studies included. Other limitations of studies are mentioned in Table 3.

Tele-education

Twenty-four studies (85.7%) were quantitative (97–102,105–109,111,112,115–124), 2 (7.1%) were qualitative (104,113), 1 (3.6%) followed mixed methodology (114) and 1 (3.6%) was a review study.(103) No study on the use of tele-education was published before 2009. A majority (72%)(97,98,100–102,104–109,111–113,116–118,121–123) of the studies were published after 2017 with the maximum (n=10, 36%)(97,98,101,106,108,109,117,121– 123) number of studies being published in 2021. Nearly all the studies were conducted in tertiary care settings or teaching institutes (86%)(98–100,102–107,109–117,119–124), and only 3 studies were conducted in primary health centers (101,108,118) and 2 in community health centers. (101,108) The use of tele-education was most studied in Karnataka (n=4)(100,104,111,112) and Delhi (n=4). (102,111,117,120) (Fig 8) Findings from all included studies have been summarized in the S3 Table.

Fig 8:
Fig 8: The number of study sites per state in India for tele-education

Tele-education services were most commonly meant for doctors (n=16)(97–103,106,109– 111,117–119,121,124) followed by nurses (n=9)(98,105,106,109,111,117,121,122,124), community healthcare workers (n=8)(103–105,107,114–116,123), allied health professionals (n=5)(98,109,114,121,124), and auxiliary midwife nurses (n=4).(108,111,112,121)

1. Facilitators and barriers to the use of tele-education

Similar to telemedicine, prior training to use the tele-education intervention (n=2)(102,118) and ease of using the intervention (n=2)(112,122) were the most common human resource-related, and application-related facilitators respectively. Availability of a device (n=2)(110,118) was identified to be a technical facilitator. Formative research prior to designing the intervention (n=1)(104) also helped in increasing its uptake as the formative research helped in addressing the needs of the participants. (Fig 9)

Fig 9:
Fig 9: Facilitators of use of tele-education

Similar to telemedicine, low digital literacy (n=2)(104,115), and poor network connectivity (n=11)(98–100,103,104,109,111,113,117,120,122) were the most common human resource-related, and technical barriers respectively. Difficulty in understanding English (n=2)(111,114), the language commonly used for the applications, and malfunctioning of the software (n=2)(111,113) were application-related barriers. Other barriers are mentioned in Fig 10.

Fig 10:
Fig 10: Barriers to the use of tele-education

2. Role of tele-education interventions

Tele-education services were most commonly used for educating about mental health disorders (n=9)(97,98,101,102,104,107,109,111,121) followed by non-communicable diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and cancer (n=4)(100,113,116,118) and maternal and child healthcare (n=4).(104,114,115,120) Two studies each focused on educating about oral health problems (105,106) and HIV (110,114) and one study addressed teleteaching for orthopedics (112), critical care (108), COVID-19 (117), palliative care (122) and cardiology.(124) Four studies did not mention what tele-education was used for.(99,103,119,123)

3. Impact of tele-education Interventions and Attitude of HCP towards Them

Tele-education resulted in an improvement in knowledge of HCP (n=17)(97,100,101,104,105,107,108,110,111,114–118,120,122,124) and an improvement in the work performance of HCP (n=5).(97,101,105,114,124) Its use also resulted in improvement in the confidence (n=5)(104,107,110,111,115) and communication (n=1)(119) of HCPs. The other impacts are mentioned in Table 2.

Out of the 28 studies, 15 studies reported positive attitudes of HCPs toward tele-education interventions (97,100,104,105,108–112,114–116,122–124) whereas 1 study reported a negative attitude (99) and the remaining did not mention the attitude of the HCP toward the intervention. Nine studies reported that the HCP was satisfied with the intervention (97,107,110,111,114,115,119,120,124) and in 3 studies HCP mentioned that they would recommend the intervention to others.(110,115,122)

4. Limitations of studies assessing the use of tele-education

Limitations of studies included were similar to the limitations cited by studies that assessed telemedicine with inadequate sample size (n=4)(107,110,111,114), poor study design (n=2)(109,123), and poor sampling techniques (n=3)(114,121,123) being the most commonly cited limitations. Other limitations of studies are mentioned in Table 3.

Discussion

Following the rapid digitalization of healthcare, mostly following the COVID-19 pandemic, this scoping review looks at the facilitators and barriers to the application of telehealth for various health issues in the Indian health system. Even though a wide variety of interventions in the form of mHealth, telemedicine, and tele-education have been explored, only 8 states/union territories were the sites for most of the interventions. The use of telehealth by doctors, nurses, and community health workers was commonly addressed and literature on the use of the same by allied health professionals and non-medical healthcare workers was limited. Telehealth was most commonly used for HRH management aiming to improve the efficiency of available human resources. Maternal and child health, non-communicable diseases like diabetes, hypertension, obstructive airway disease, and cancer, and mental health were common areas of focus for the use of telehealth. Few studies looked at the use of telehealth for the provision of acute medical care, follow-up of patients after discharge, provision, and monitoring of home-based palliative care, and improvement in treatment compliance of patients with HIV and tuberculosis. Studies conducted globally, have also assessed the utility of telemedicine, mHealth, and tele-education for similar diseases and conditions as done by the studies in India. (125–127)

This review brings to light multiple facilitators and barriers to telehealth adoption and use. The findings could help in the modification of national policies and guidelines which currently are not very robust. (128) Moreover the facilitators and barriers identified for mHealth, telemedicine, and tele-education are similar. An understanding of the facilitators and barriers emphasizes the need for understanding the same at multiple dimensions especially focusing on the facilitators and barriers related to Human resources for health (HRH), Infrastructure, and Technology. The facilitators and barriers identified in our review are similar to those reported previously in the context of telehealth in LMICs. Technical and infrastructural barriers in the form of internet access, device access, connectivity issues, poor battery life, and unstable electricity supply contribute to a major road back in implementing telehealth services in LMICs.(129–131) This is especially important in the context of India, where over 70% of the population resides in rural areas which are highly vulnerable to the aforementioned barriers. (132) An increase in network coverage should also be associated with a push for gender equality as it is seen that women have lesser access to mobile phones and other technologies. (133) In terms of HRH barriers, previous studies have identified HRH shortage, insufficient training, and skills, additional workload, lack of motivation lack of technical support, lack of integration with other government systems, and data safety and legal concerns.(129–131,134,135) Additionally our study provides deeper insights into barriers faced by the provider like fear of internet addiction, language barriers, and malfunction of applications. Barriers concerning the lack of human touch and stigma related to subpar patient care have also been previously raised by a systematic review conducted by Kruse C. S. et al.(136) Previous studies have also reported financial barriers in the form of sponsorships and funding, capital expenses for technology start-up and maintenance, and budget constraints. (129,131)

In the Indian context, Government support and funding for telehealth interventions have been found to be an important facilitator for their implementations as reported by 3 studies included in our review. However, funding towards health overall is still largely limited in India as only 2.1% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is invested in the public healthcare sectors. (137) Initiatives like the ‘G-20 Digital Innovation Alliance’ show promise in encouraging digital health startups by providing grants, sponsorship, and collaboration opportunities in order to strengthen the telehealth scenario. (138) Previous studies have also shown that a strong commitment from the governments towards supporting and financing telehealth has been one the major facilitators. (135) HRH & Application related facilitators in the form of prior training, technical support, use of local language, and better user interface which have been shown to be important facilitators (135), were also reported in over one-third of the studies from our review. Additionally, providing incentives for telehealth use, use of offline material, balanced overload, and the relationship of CHW with the community were also found to be other important facilitators in our review. Formative research to support fit with the context and population was seen as an important facilitator for telehealth in India; this emphasizes the need for regional research as well as customizing the intervention as per the setting. Fifteen studies also emphasized the cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions, which serve as a vital facilitator in resource-constrained settings like India.

Our review reported a strong impact of telehealth on patient care in terms of better patient outcomes, treatment compliance, and disease knowledge. It reduced travel constraints and improved accessibility for both patients and healthcare providers which has also been shown to improve the previously mentioned outcomes. (139,140) Specifically for healthcare workers, a greater number of studies showed that the use of telehealth improved their performance, confidence, and patient communication. Globally as well, multiple studies have reported similar positives. (141,142) However, a few studies also highlight contradicting findings which are multifactorial and scenario-dependent. (143,144) Studies assessing the use of telehealth diagnostics have also shown promising results in India which are similar to other studies conducted globally. (127,145–147) Our review also highlights the utility of digital health interventions in the overall education and skill training of HRH personnel. As shown by multiple studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, remote learning facilitated by tele-education has proven to be an effective tool that can be harnessed even after the pandemic in order to make education and training more convenient and accessible. (145,148–150)

The need for decentralized healthcare planning was identified following the Covid-19 pandemic. (7) Our review identifies that with respect to telehealth, the generation of scientific literature on facilitators and barriers has been concentrated in a few states only. As the government is pushing for the digitization of healthcare through the Ayushman Bharat Digital Health Mission (151), it is important to understand the barriers and facilitators not just at the national level but also at the community level. More comparable evidence needs to be generated in order to understand local factors affecting the implementation of telehealth in India.

Strengths and Limitations

A few of the strengths of our studies are the use of a robust search strategy and the inclusion of a large number of studies. While previous reviews have assessed the overall utility of telemedicine, our review specifically looks at telehealth, which covers broader interventions, and its utility in the context of HRH providers. In the Indian context use of mHealth, telemedicine, and tele-education by community health workers has been an important highlight of our review. However, the findings of this review must be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. Firstly, studies included mainly assess the utility of public health, mHealth, telemedicine, and tele-education portals, while there are multiple private applications that are usually accessible to upper socioeconomic strata, whose utility hasn’t been assessed. Secondly, since this is a scoping review we only provide a brief overview of the facilitators and barriers, and an in-depth analysis of study outcomes, meta-analysis, and critical appraisal of the risk of bias was not performed for the studies included. Thirdly, while analyzing the number of studies from each state, data was not available for 28 studies, and 8 studies were conducted in multiple states with no mention of the names of the states involved. Finally, our search strategy, though comprehensive, is limited only to PubMed, which might have led to the exclusion of a few studies available on other databases like Scopus and EMBASE.

Conclusion

Use of telehealth has not been studied uniformly across India. Systematic efforts need to be taken to anticipate and address barriers and implement telehealth intervention in ways to facilitate its uptake. Future studies should focus on looking at region-specific, intervention-specific, and health cadre-specific barriers and facilitators for the use of telehealth in order to promote decentralized decision-making for successfully implementing telehealth interventions in India.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Abbreviations

HCP
Health Care Provider
UHC
Universal Health Coverage HRH - Human Resources for Health

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Dr. Dipanwita Sengupta, Lancet Citizens’ Commission Member for her support during the review process. We also want to thank Ms. Vashumathi Sriganesh from QMed Knowledge Foundation, Mumbai for providing her support for building the search strategy.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Catalyst N. What Is Telehealth? NEJM Catal [Internet]. 2018 Feb 1 [cited 2023 Sep 28]; Available from: https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.18.0268
  2. 2.↵
    Balarajan Y, Selvaraj S, Subramanian SV. Health care and equity in India. Lancet. 2011 Feb 5;377(9764):505–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Barik D, Thorat A. Issues of Unequal Access to Public Health in India. Front Public Health. 2015;3:245.
  4. 4.↵
    South India Disability Evidence Study Group, Gudlavalleti MVS, John N, Allagh K, Sagar J, Kamalakannan S, et al. Access to health care and employment status of people with disabilities in South India, the SIDE (South India Disability Evidence) study. BMC Public Health. 2014 Dec;14(1):1125.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Karan A, Negandhi H, Hussain S, Zapata T, Mairembam D, De Graeve H, et al. Size, composition and distribution of health workforce in India: why, and where to invest? Hum Resour Health. 2021 Dec;19(1):1–14.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    Sengupta A, Nundy S. The private health sector in India. BMJ. 2005 Nov 19;331(7526):1157–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Pramesh CS, Seshadri DVR, Fernandez E, Rao GN, Dutta M, Mohan P, et al. Healthcare in post-COVID India: A call for a decentralized healthcare system. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2021 Dec;10(12):4337–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    Sorwar G, Rahamn MM, Uddin R, Hoque MR. Cost and Time Effectiveness Analysis of a Telemedicine Service in Bangladesh. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;231:127–34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.
    Snoswell CL, Taylor ML, Comans TA, Smith AC, Gray LC, Caffery LJ. Determining if Telehealth Can Reduce Health System Costs: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 19;22(10):e17298.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Cabrera CI, Ning AY, Cai Y, D’Anza B. Systematic Review of Telehealth Cost Minimization for Patients and Health Systems in Otolaryngology. The Laryngoscope. 2021 Aug;131(8):1741–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/gs4dhdaa2a9f352b0445bafbc79ca799dce4d.pdf
  12. 12.↵
    Patel AB, Kuhite PN, Alam A, Pusdekar Y, Puranik A, Khan SS, et al. M-SAKHI-Mobile health solutions to help community providers promote maternal and infant nutrition and health using a community-based cluster randomized controlled trial in rural India: A study protocol. Matern Child Nutr. 2019 Oct;15(4):e12850.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Srinidhi V, Karachiwala B, Iyer A, Reddy B, Mathrani V, Madhiwalla N, et al. ASHA Kirana: when digital technology empowered front-line health workers. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Sep;6(Suppl 5):e005039.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Hossain MM, Tasnim S, Sharma R, Sultana A, Shaik AF, Faizah F, et al. Digital interventions for people living with non-communicable diseases in India: A systematic review of intervention studies and recommendations for future research and development. Digit Health. 2019 Jan;5:205520761989615.
  15. 15.↵
    Markan A, Kishore A, Agarwal A, Akella M, Singh A, Goyal S, et al. Demographic profile of patients seeking teleophthalmology consultations through e-Sanjeevani: Retrospective analysis of 5138 patients from North India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022 Dec;70(12):4238–43.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Panda R, Mishra N, Lahoti S, Prabhu RR, Mishra A, Singh K, et al. Evaluation of COVID-19 ECHO training program for healthcare workers in India - A Mixed-Method Study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Jul 8;22(1):883.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    OSF Registries | A comprehensive scoping review protocol to analyze the evidence on human resources for health management strategies in India [Internet]. [cited 2023 Sep 28]. Available from: https://osf.io/kq3u9
  18. 18.↵
    Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005 Feb;8(1):19–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Usmanova G, Gresh A, Cohen MA, Kim YM, Srivastava A, Joshi CS, et al. Acceptability and Barriers to Use of the ASMAN Provider-Facing Electronic Platform for Peripartum Care in Public Facilities in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, India: A Qualitative Study Using the Technology Acceptance Model-3. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 11;17(22).
  21. 21.↵
    Muke SS, Tugnawat D, Joshi U, Anand A, Khan A, Shrivastava R, et al. Digital Training for Non-Specialist Health Workers to Deliver a Brief Psychological Treatment for Depression in Primary Care in India: Findings from a Randomized Pilot Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 1;17(17).
  22. 22.↵
    Scott K, Ummer O, Chamberlain S, Sharma M, Gharai D, Mishra B, et al. At the frontlines of digitisation: a qualitative study on the challenges and opportunities in maintaining accurate, complete and timely digital health records in India’s government health system. BMJ Open. 2022 Feb;12(2):e051193.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Bhattacharjya S, Lenker J, Ghosh R. Assessing the usefulness of an mHealth strategy to support implementation of multi-faceted adaptive feeding interventions by community-based rehabilitation workers. Assist Technol. 2023 May 4;35(3):228–34.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Gupta A, Agrawal R, Gupt A, Guleri R, Bajpayee D, Joshi N, et al. Systems E-approach for women at risk (SEWA)—A digital health solution for detection of high-risk pregnancies. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2021;10(10):3712.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Charanthimath U, Katageri G, Kinshella MLW, Mallapur A, Goudar S, Ramadurg U, et al. Community Health Worker Evaluation of Implementing an mHealth Application to Support Maternal Health Care in Rural India. Front Glob Womens Health. 2021 Sep 1;2:645690.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Bairapareddy KC, Alaparthi GK, Jitendra RS, Prathiksha, Rao PP, Shetty V, et al. “We are so close; yet too far”: perceived barriers to smartphone-based telerehabilitation among healthcare providers and patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in India. Heliyon. 2021 Aug;7(8):e07857.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Bashingwa JJH, Shah N, Mohan D, Scott K, Chamberlain S, Mulder N, et al. Examining the reach and exposure of a mobile phone-based training programme for frontline health workers (ASHAs) in 13 states across India. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Aug;6(Suppl 5):e005299.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Deo S, Singh P. Community health worker-led, technology-enabled private sector intervention for diabetes and hypertension management among urban poor: a retrospective cohort study from large Indian metropolitan city. BMJ Open. 2021 Aug;11(8):e045246.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    Singh NS, Scott K, George A, LeFevre AE, Ved R. A tale of ‘politics and stars aligning’: analysing the sustainability of scaled up digital tools for front-line health workers in India. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jul;6(Suppl 5):e005041.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    Schierhout G, Praveen D, Patel B, Li Q, Mogulluru K, Ameer MA, et al. Why do strategies to strengthen primary health care succeed in some places and fail in others? Exploring local variation in the effectiveness of a community health worker managed digital health intervention in rural India. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jul;6(Suppl 5):e005003.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Subramanian S, Jose R, Lal A, Augustine P, Jones M, Gopal BK, et al. Acceptability, Utility, and Cost of a Mobile Health Cancer Screening Education Application for Training Primary Care Physicians in India. The Oncologist. 2021 Dec 1;26(12):e2192– 9.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    Khan A, Shrivastava R, Tugnawat D, Singh A, Dimidjian S, Patel V, et al. Design and Development of a Digital Program for Training Non-specialist Health Workers to Deliver an Evidence-Based Psychological Treatment for Depression in Primary Care in India. J Technol Behav Sci. 2020 Dec;5(4):402–15.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Usmanova G, Lalchandani K, Srivastava A, Joshi CS, Bhatt DC, Bairagi AK, et al. The role of digital clinical decision support tool in improving quality of intrapartum and postpartum care: experiences from two states of India. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Dec;21(1):278.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Anand P, Thukral A, Deorari A, National Neonatology Forum Network, Sethi A, Kumar A, et al. Dissemination of Best Practices in Preterm Care Through a Novel Mobile Phone-Based Interactive e-Learning Platform. Indian J Pediatr. 2021 Nov;88(11):1068–74.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Swathi M, Sabeena S, Abdulmajeed J, Pattanaik S, Dsa O, Shubha H, et al. Development and evaluation of a mobile app for guiding rabies prophylaxis among health-care professionals in India. Indian J Community Med. 2020;45(4):472.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Ward VC, Raheel H, Weng Y, Mehta KM, Dutt P, Mitra R, et al. Impact of mHealth interventions for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition at scale: BBC Media Action and the Ananya program in Bihar, India. J Glob Health. 2020 Dec;10(2):021005.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Chattopadhyay T, Mondal H, Mondal S, Dutta R, Saha K, Das D. Prescription digitization, online preservation, and retrieval on a smartphone. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2020;9(10):5295.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Harding R, Carrasco JM, Serrano-Pons J, Lemaire J, Namisango E, Luyirika E, et al. Design and Evaluation of a Novel Mobile Phone Application to Improve Palliative Home-Care in Resource-Limited Settings. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021 Jul;62(1):1– 9.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Modi D, Saha S, Vaghela P, Dave K, Anand A, Desai S, et al. Costing and Cost-Effectiveness of a Mobile Health Intervention (ImTeCHO) in Improving Infant Mortality in Tribal Areas of Gujarat, India: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2020 Oct 14;8(10):e17066.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Shah P, Madhiwala N, Shah S, Desai G, Dave K, Dholakia N, et al. High uptake of an innovative mobile phone application among community health workers in rural India: An implementation study. Natl Med J India. 2019;32(5):262.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Suryavanshi N, Kadam A, Kanade S, Gupte N, Gupta A, Bollinger R, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of a behavioral and mobile health intervention (COMBIND) shown to increase uptake of prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) care in India. BMC Public Health. 2020 Dec;20(1):752.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Carmichael SL, Mehta K, Srikantiah S, Mahapatra T, Chaudhuri I, Balakrishnan R, et al. Use of mobile technology by frontline health workers to promote reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition: a cluster randomized controlled Trial in Bihar, India. J Glob Health. 2019 Dec;9(2):0204249.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Myers JE
    Modi D, Dholakia N, Gopalan R, Venkatraman S, Dave K, Shah S, et al. mHealth intervention “ImTeCHO” to improve delivery of maternal, neonatal, and child care services—A cluster-randomized trial in tribal areas of Gujarat, India. Myers JE, editor. PLOS Med. 2019 Oct 24;16(10):e1002939.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    Muke SS, Shrivastava RD, Mitchell L, Khan A, Murhar V, Tugnawat D, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of digital technology for training community health workers to deliver brief psychological treatment for depression in rural India. Asian J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct;45:99–106.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Khan A, Sebok-Syer SS, Linstadt H, Storm M, Modan N, Bosco MK, et al. An Electronic-Based Curriculum to Train Acute Care Providers in Rural Haiti and India. J Grad Med Educ. 2019 Aug 1;11(4s):152–7.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Jindal D, Roy A, Ajay VS, Yadav SK, Prabhakaran D, Tandon N. Strategies for Stakeholder Engagement and Uptake of New Intervention: Experience From State-Wide Implementation of mHealth Technology for NCD Care in Tripura, India. Glob Heart. 2019 Jun 1;14(2):165.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Birur Np, Gurushanth K, Patrick S, Sunny S, Raghavan S, Gurudath S, et al. Role of community health worker in a mobile health program for early detection of oral cancer. Indian J Cancer. 2019;56(2):107.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Abdel-All M, Angell B, Jan S, Praveen D, Joshi R. The development of an Android platform to undertake a discrete choice experiment in a low resource setting. Arch Public Health. 2019 Dec;77(1):20.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Naslund JA, Shidhaye R, Patel V. Digital Technology for Building Capacity of Nonspecialist Health Workers for Task Sharing and Scaling Up Mental Health Care Globally. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;27(3):181–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Liu G
    Peiris D, Praveen D, Mogulluru K, Ameer MA, Raghu A, Li Q, et al. SMARThealth India: A stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial of a community health worker managed mobile health intervention for people assessed at high cardiovascular disease risk in rural India. Liu G, editor. PLOS ONE. 2019 Mar 26;14(3):e0213708.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Deserno TM
    Dandge S, Jeemon P, Reddy PS. Technology enabled non-physician health workers extending telemedicine to rural homes to control hypertension and diabetes (TETRA): A pre-post demonstration project in Telangana, India. Deserno TM, editor. PLOS ONE. 2019 Feb 19;14(2):e0211551.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    Bhatt S, Isaac R, Finkel M, Evans J, Grant L, Paul B, et al. Mobile technology and cancer screening: Lessons from rural India. J Glob Health. 2018 Dec;8(2):020421.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Shah S, Shinde A, Anand A, Modi D, Desai G, Bhatt H, et al. The role of an MH ealth intervention in improving knowledge and skills of accredited social health activists in tribal areas of Gujarat, India: a nested study within an implementation research trial. Acta Paediatr. 2018 Dec;107(S471):72–9.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Pant Pai N, Daher J, Prashanth H, Shetty A, Sahni RD, Kannangai R, et al. Will an innovative connected AideSmart! app-based multiplex, point-of-care screening strategy for HIV and related coinfections affect timely quality antenatal screening of rural Indian women? Results from a cross-sectional study in India. Sex Transm Infect. 2019 Mar;95(2):133–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    Birur NP, Patrick S, Bajaj S, Raghavan S, Suresh A, Sunny SP, et al. A Novel Mobile Health Approach to Early Diagnosis of Oral Cancer. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Sep 1;19(9):1122–8.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Sharma D, Rohilla L, Bagga R, Srinivasan R, Jindal HA, Sharma N, et al. Feasibility of implementing cervical cancer screening program using smartphone imaging as a training aid for nurses in rural India. Public Health Nurs. 2018 Nov;35(6):526–33.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Ilozumba O, Dieleman M, Kraamwinkel N, Van Belle S, Chaudoury M, Broerse JEW. “I am not telling. The mobile is telling”: Factors influencing the outcomes of a community health worker mHealth intervention in India. Fernandez-Reyes D, editor. PLOS ONE. 2018 Mar 27;13(3):e0194927.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    Patterson V, Samant S, Singh MB, Jain P, Agavane V, Jain Y. Diagnosis of epileptic seizures by community health workers using a mobile app: A comparison with physicians and a neurologist. Seizure. 2018 Feb;55:4–8.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Garner SL, Sudia T, Rachaprolu S. Smart phone accessibility and mHealth use in a limited resource setting. Int J Nurs Pract. 2018 Feb;24(1):e12609.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Prinja S, Nimesh R, Gupta A, Bahuguna P, Gupta M, Thakur JS. Impact of mLJhealth application used by community health volunteers on improving utilisation of maternal, newLJborn and child health care services in a rural area of Uttar Pradesh, India. Trop Med Int Health. 2017 Jul;22(7):895–907.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Araya R, Marsch LA, Unützer J, Patel V, et al. Digital technology for treating and preventing mental disorders in low-income and middle-income countries: a narrative review of the literature. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;4(6):486–500.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Maulik PK, Kallakuri S, Devarapalli S, Vadlamani VK, Jha V, Patel A. Increasing use of mental health services in remote areas using mobile technology: a pre–post evaluation of the SMART Mental Health project in rural India. J Glob Health. 2017 Jun;7(1):010408.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    Balakrishnan R, Gopichandran V, Chaturvedi S, Chatterjee R, Mahapatra T, Chaudhuri I. Continuum of Care Services for Maternal and Child Health using mobile technology – a health system strengthening strategy in low and middle income countries. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Dec;16(1):84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    Modi D, Patel J, Desai S, Shah P. Accessing completeness of pregnancy, delivery, and death registration by Accredited Social Health Activists [ASHA] in an innovative mHealth project in the tribal areas of Gujarat: A cross-sectional study. J Postgrad Med. 2016;62(3):170.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    Smith R, Menon J, Rajeev JG, Feinberg L, Kumar RK, Banerjee A. Potential for the use of mHealth in the management of cardiovascular disease in Kerala: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2015 Nov 17;5(11):e009367–e009367.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    Gera R, Muthusamy N, Bahulekar A, Sharma A, Singh P, Sekhar A, et al. An in-depth assessment of India’s Mother and Child Tracking System (MCTS) in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Dec;15(1):315.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    Modi D, Gopalan R, Shah S, Venkatraman S, Desai G, Desai S, et al. Development and formative evaluation of an innovative mHealth intervention for improving coverage of community-based maternal, newborn and child health services in rural areas of India. Glob Health Action. 2015 Dec;8(1):26769.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    Thukral A, Joshi M, Joshi P, Prakash V, Adkoli BV, Deorari AK. Apps for Management of Sick Newborn: Evaluation of Impact on Health Care Professionals. J Trop Pediatr. 2014 Oct 1;60(5):370–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Jarosławski S, Saberwal G. In eHealth in India today, the nature of work, the challenges and the finances: an interview-based study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014 Dec;14(1):1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    Rajasekaran R, Sriman Narayana Iyengar NC. Peer-to-Peer JXTA Architecture for Continuing Mobile Medical Education Incorporated in Rural Public Health Centers. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2013 Apr;4(2):99–106.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Goel S, Bhatnagar N, Sharma D, Singh A. Bridging the Human Resource Gap in Primary Health Care Delivery Systems of Developing Countries With mHealth: Narrative Literature Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2013 Dec 3;1(2):e25.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    Zayapragassarazan Z. Awareness, Knowledge, Attitude and Skills of Telemedicine among Health Professional Faculty Working in Teaching Hospitals. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; Available from: http://jcdr.net/article_fulltext.asp?issn=0973-709x&year=2016&volume=10&issue=3&page=JC01&issn=0973-709x&id=7431
  73. 73.↵
    Lindquist B, Strehlow MC, Rao GVR, Newberry JA. Barriers to Real-Time Medical Direction via Cellular Communication for Prehospital Emergency Care Providers in Gujarat, India. Cureus. 2016 Jul 8; Available from: http://www.cureus.com/articles/4661-barriers-to-real-time-medical-direction-via-cellular-communication-for-prehospital-emergency-care-providers-in-gujarat-india
  74. 74.↵
    Rout SK, Gabhale YR, Dutta A, Balakrishnan S, Lala MM, Setia MS, et al. Can telemedicine initiative be an effective intervention strategy for improving treatment compliance for pediatric HIV patients: Evidences on costs and improvement in treatment compliance from Maharashtra, India. Beck EJ, editor. PLOS ONE. 2019 Oct 8;14(10):e0223303.
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.↵
    Gupta N, Chawla N, Gupta D, Dhawan N, Janaki VR. Community Triage of Otology Patients Using a Store-and-Forward Telemedicine Device: A Feasibility Study. Ear Nose Throat J. 2020 Mar 22;014556132090895.
  76. 76.↵
    Thakar S, Rajagopal N, Mani S, Shyam M, Aryan S, Rao AS, et al. Comparison of telemedicine with in-person care for follow-up after elective neurosurgery: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis of 1200 patients using patient-perceived utility scores. Neurosurg Focus. 2018 May;44(5):E17.
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.↵
    Ravindran S, P LN, Channaveerachari NK, Seshadri SP, Kasi S, Manikappa SK, et al. Crossing barriers: Role of a tele-outreach program addressing psychosocial needs in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic. Asian J Psychiatry. 2020 Oct;53:102351.
  78. 78.↵
    Manjunatha N, Kumar C, Math S, Thirthalli J. Designing and implementing an innovative digitally driven primary care psychiatry program in India. Indian J Psychiatry. 2018;60(2):236.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Patro B, Tripathy J, De D, Sinha S, Singh A, Kanwar A. Diagnostic agreement between a primary care physician and a teledermatologist for common dermatological conditions in North India. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6(1):21.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    Mohanan M, Babiarz KS, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Miller G, Vera-Hernández M. Effect Of A Large-Scale Social Franchising And Telemedicine Program On Childhood Diarrhea And Pneumonia Outcomes In India. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Oct;35(10):1800–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.↵
    Keeppanasserril A, Mathew A, Muddappa SC. Effectiveness of Tele-guided Interceptive Prosthodontic treatment in rural India: A comparative pilot study. Online J Public Health Inform. 2011 Nov 7;3(2). Available from: http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/ojphi/article/view/3800
  82. 82.↵
    Patel A, Kuhite P, Puranik A, Khan SS, Borkar J, Dhande L. Effectiveness of weekly cell phone counselling calls and daily text messages to improve breastfeeding indicators. BMC Pediatr. 2018 Dec;18(1):337.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    Acharya R, Rai J. Evaluation of patient and doctor perception toward the use of telemedicine in Apollo Tele Health Services, India. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2016;5(4):798.
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    Panda PK, Dawman L, Panda P, Sharawat IK. Feasibility and effectiveness of teleconsultation in children with epilepsy amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in a resource-limited country. Seizure. 2020 Oct;81:29–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    Khanna M, Gowda GS, Bagevadi VI, Gupta A, Kulkarni K, Shyam RPS, et al. Feasibility and Utility of Tele-Neurorehabilitation Service in India: Experience from a Quaternary Center. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2018 Oct;09(04):541–4.
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.↵
    Ragesh G, Ganjekar S, Thippeswamy H, Desai G, Hamza A, Chandra PS. Feasibility, Acceptability and Usage Patterns of a 24-Hour Mobile Phone Helpline Service for Women Discharged from a Mother-Baby Psychiatry Unit (MBU) in India. Indian J Psychol Med. 2020 Nov;42(6):530–4.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.↵
    Verma N, Mishra S, Singh S, Kaur R, Kaur T, De A, et al. Feasibility, Outcomes, and Safety of Telehepatology Services During the COVIDLJ19 Pandemic. Hepatol Commun. 2022 Jan;6(1):65–76.
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.↵
    Raman R, Bhojwani DN, Sharma T. How accurate is the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy on telescreening? The Indian scenario. Rural Remote Health. 2014;14(4):2809.
    OpenUrl
  89. 89.↵
    Ramkumar V, Nagarajan R, Shankarnarayan VC, Kumaravelu S, Hall JW. Implementation and evaluation of a rural community-based pediatric hearing screening program integrating in-person and tele-diagnostic auditory brainstem response (ABR). BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Dec;19(1):1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    Meher SK, Biswas A, Ratha BK. Legal issues among doctors in the implementation of teleconsultation: a study at AIIMS, New Delhi, India. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:1107.
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.↵
    Biswas S, Adhikari S, Gupta N, Garg R, Bharti S, Kumar V, et al. Smartphone-based telemedicine service at palliative care unit during nationwide lockdown: Our initial experience at a tertiary care cancer hospital. Indian J Palliat Care. 2020;26(5):31.
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.↵
    Angral S, Varshney S, Aanand P, Raj R. Tele Otology in India: Last 10 Years—A Scopic Review. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Dec;74(S3):3776–88.
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.↵
    Ganapathy K, Alagappan D, Rajakumar H, Dhanapal B, Rama Subbu G, Nukala L, et al. Tele-Emergency Services in the Himalayas. Telemed E-Health. 2019 May;25(5):380– 90.
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.↵
    Ganapathy K, Chawdhry V, Premanand S, Sarma A, Chandralekha J, Kumar KY, et al. Telemedicine in the Himalayas: Operational Challenges—A Preliminary Report. Telemed E-Health. 2016 Oct;22(10):821–35.
    OpenUrl
  95. 95.↵
    Naik SS, Rahul P, Harihara S, Pahuja E, Chithra NK, Ramachandraiah S, et al. Telephonic follow-up during COVID-19 to maintain continuity of care for persons with psychiatric disorders. Asian J Psychiatry. 2021 Mar;57:102564.
  96. 96.↵
    Nair PP, Aghoram R, Thomas B, Bharadwaj B, Chinnakali P. Video teleconsultation services for persons with epilepsy during COVID-19 pandemic: An exploratory study from public tertiary care hospital in Southern India on feasibility, satisfaction, and effectiveness. Epilepsy Behav. 2021 Apr;117:107863.
  97. 97.↵
    Philip S, Patley R, Chander R, Varshney P, Dosajh AC, Vinay B, et al. A report on successful introduction of tele mental health training for primary care doctors during the COVID 19 pandemic. Asian J Psychiatry. 2022 Feb;68:102967.
  98. 98.↵
    Shiva L, Desai G, Chand P, Ganjekar S, Vaiphei K, Satyanarayana VA, et al. A virtual course in perinatal mental health for healthcare professionals. Asian J Psychiatry. 2021 Aug;62:102746.
  99. 99.↵
    Balasubramaniam SM, Bhargava S, Agrawal N, Asif R, Chawngthu L, Sinha P, et al. Blending virtual with conventional learning to improve student midwifery skills in India. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018 Jan;28:163–7.
    OpenUrl
  100. 100.↵
    Dhanasekaran K, Babu R, Kumar V, Mehrotra R, Hariprasad R. Capacity Building of Gynecologists in Cancer Screening Through Hybrid Training Approach. J Cancer Educ. 2020 Dec;35(6):1243–9.
    OpenUrl
  101. 101.↵
    Ibrahim FA, Malathesh BC, Gajera G, Pandey P, Nirisha P L, Jyrwa S, et al. Chhattisgarh community mental healthcare tele-mentoring program (CHaMP): Digitally driven initiative to reach the unreached. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2022 Aug;68(5):954–7.
    OpenUrl
  102. 102.↵
    Pahuja E, Kumar S, Kumar A, Uzzafar F, Sarkar S, Manjunatha N, et al. Collaborative Video Consultations from Tertiary Care Based Telepsychiatrist to a Remote Primary Care Doctor to Manage Opioid Substitution Therapy Clinic. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2020 Jun 12;11:498–501.
    OpenUrl
  103. 103.↵
    Mahapatra AK, Mishra SK, Kapoor L, Singh IP. Critical Issues in Medical Education and the Implications for Telemedicine Technology. Telemed E-Health. 2009 Jul;15(6):592–6.
    OpenUrl
  104. 104.↵
    Lakshminarayanan M, Kathuria N, Mehra S. Delivery of perinatal mental health services by training lay counselors using digital platforms. Asian J Psychiatry. 2020 Dec;54:102277.
  105. 105.↵
    Kumar Pm, Gottumukkala SruthimaNVS, Ramesh KsV, Bharath Ts, Penmetsa G, Kumar Cn. Effect of e-learning methods on Dental education: An observational study. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9(1):235.
    OpenUrl
  106. 106.↵
    Priya H, Kharbanda OP, Agarwal D, Ivaturi A, Ravi P, Gupta A, et al. Effectiveness of a web-based learning module on oral health promotion for nursing and allied health professionals. Natl Med J India. 2021 Aug;34(4):232–4.
    OpenUrl
  107. 107.↵
    Mehrotra K, Chand P, Bandawar M, Rao Sagi M, Kaur S, G A, et al. Effectiveness of NIMHANS ECHO blended tele-mentoring model on Integrated Mental Health and Addiction for counsellors in rural and underserved districts of Chhattisgarh, India. Asian J Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;36:123–7.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.↵
    Gautam S, Shukla A, Mishra N, Kohli M, Singh G. Effectiveness of virtual training for medical officers and community health officers in the critical care management of COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit. Indian J Anaesth. 2021;65(16):168.
    OpenUrl
  109. 109.↵
    Manjunatha N, Sadh K, Shashidhara H, Manjunatha B, Shashank H, Ashwatha Kp, et al. Establishing performance indicators of telemedicine-based “On-Consultation Training” of primary care doctors: An innovation to integrate psychiatry at primary care. Indian J Community Med. 2021;46(1):75.
    OpenUrl
  110. 110.↵
    Chang LW, Kadam DB, Sangle S, Narayanan S, Borse RT, McKenzie-White J, et al. Evaluation of a Multimodal, Distance Learning HIV Management Course for Clinical Care Providers in India. J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 2012 Oct;11(5):277–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  111. 111.↵
    Sagi M, Aurobind G, Chand P, Ashfak A, Karthick C, Kubenthiran N, et al. Innovative telementoring for addiction management for remote primary care physicians: A feasibility study. Indian J Psychiatry. 2018;60(4):461.
    OpenUrl
  112. 112.↵
    Barik S, Paul S, Kandwal P. Insight into the changing patterns in clinical and academic activities of the orthopedic residents during COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Oct;28(10):3087–93.
    OpenUrl
  113. 113.↵
    Babu R, Dhanasekaran K, Mehrotra R, Hariprasad R. Leveraging Technology for Nation-Wide Training of Healthcare Professionals in Cancer Screening in India: a Methods Article. J Cancer Educ. 2021 Oct;36(5):950–6.
    OpenUrl
  114. 114.↵
    Ramanathan R, Aldis R, Gupta S, Desai M, Bollinger RC, Reed VA. Mixed methods evaluation of an international internet-based continuing medical education course for pediatric HIV providers in Pune, India. Educ Health Abingdon Engl. 2011 Apr;24(1):540.
    OpenUrl
  115. 115.↵
    Thukral A, Sasi A, Chawla D, Datta P, Wahid S, Rao S, et al. Online Neonatal Training and Orientation Programme in India (ONTOP-IN)--The Way Forward for Distance Education in Developing Countries. J Trop Pediatr. 2012 Dec 1;58(6):486–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. 116.↵
    Nethan ST, Hariprasad R, Babu R, Kumar V, Sharma S, Mehrotra R. Project ECHO: a Potential Best-Practice Tool for Training Healthcare Providers in Oral Cancer Screening and Tobacco Cessation. J Cancer Educ. 2020 Oct;35(5):965–71.
    OpenUrl
  117. 117.↵
    Rao S, Rohilla KK, Kathrotia R, Naithani M, Varghese A, Bahadur A, et al. Rapid Workforce Development to Combat the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience From a Tertiary Health Care Centre in North India. Cureus. 2021 Jun 11; Available from: https://www.cureus.com/articles/59334-rapid-workforce-development-to-combat-the-covid-19-pandemic-experience-from-a-tertiary-health-care-centre-in-north-india
  118. 118.↵
    Hariprasad R, Arora S, Babu R, Sriram L, Sardana S, Hanumappa S, et al. Retention of Knowledge Levels of Health Care Providers in Cancer Screening Through Telementoring. J Glob Oncol. 2018 Dec;(4):1–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.↵
    Mahadevan S, Muralidhar K, Shetty D. Tele-Education Service Using Telemedicine Network in Healthcare Industry. Telemed E-Health. 2012 Nov;18(9):699–702.
    OpenUrl
  120. 120.↵
    Jain A, Agarwal R, Chawla D, Paul V, Deorari A. Tele-education vs classroom training of neonatal resuscitation: a randomized trial. J Perinatol. 2010 Dec;30(12):773–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. 121.↵
    Orsolini L, Jatchavala C, Noor IM, Ransing R, Satake Y, Shoib S, et al. Training and education in digital psychiatry: A perspective from ASIALJPACIFIC region. Asia-Pac Psychiatry. 2021 Dec;13(4):e12501.
    OpenUrl
  122. 122.↵
    Doherty M, Rayala S, Evans E, Rowe J, Rapelli V, Palat G. Using Virtual Learning to Build Pediatric Palliative Care Capacity in South Asia: Experiences of Implementing a Teleteaching and Mentorship Program (Project ECHO). JCO Glob Oncol. 2021 Dec;(7):210–22.
    OpenUrl
  123. 123.↵
    Bhattarai D, Sharma A, Sengupta P. Utility and perceptions about web-based academics among physicians during COVID-19 pandemic. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2021;10(2):699.
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.↵
    Bansal M, Singh S, Maheshwari P, Adams D, McCulloch ML, Dada T, et al. Value of Interactive Scanning for Improving the Outcome of New-Learners in Transcontinental Tele-Echocardiography (VISION-in-Tele-Echo) Study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):75–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. 125.↵
    1. Bullen C
    Braun R, Catalani C, Wimbush J, Israelski D. Community Health Workers and Mobile Technology: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Bullen C, editor. PLoS ONE. 2013 Jun 12;8(6):e65772.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. 126.
    Deldar K, Bahaadinbeigy K, Tara SM. Teleconsultation and Clinical Decision Making: a Systematic Review. Acta Inform Medica AIM J Soc Med Inform Bosnia Herzeg Cas Drustva Za Med Inform BiH. 2016 Jul 16;24(4):286–92.
    OpenUrl
  127. 127.↵
    Lee Y, Raviglione MC, Flahault A. Use of Digital Technology to Enhance Tuberculosis Control: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Feb 13;22(2):e15727.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. 128.↵
    Sharma P, Sethi MIS, Liem A, Bhatti HBS, Pandey V, Nair A. A Review of Telemedicine Guidelines in the South-East Asia Region. Telemed Rep. 2023 Sep 1;4(1):271–8.
    OpenUrl
  129. 129.↵
    Al-Samarraie H, Ghazal S, Alzahrani AI, Moody L. Telemedicine in Middle Eastern countries: Progress, barriers, and policy recommendations. Int J Med Inf. 2020 Sep;141:104232.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  130. 130.
    Bedi G, Vyas KS, Chung MT, Morrison SD, Asaad M, Mardini S. Telemedicine in International Cleft Care: A Systematic Review. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2021 Dec;58(12):1547–55.
    OpenUrl
  131. 131.↵
    Dodoo JE, Al-Samarraie H, Alzahrani AI. Telemedicine use in Sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and policy recommendations for Covid-19 and beyond. Int J Med Inf. 2021 Jul;151:104467.
    OpenUrl
  132. 132.↵
    NSS 75th Round. Key Indicators of Social Consumption in India: Health. 2019 Nov, Available from: https://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/NSS75250H/KI_Health_75th_Final.pdf
  133. 133.↵
    Joshi A, Malhotra B, Amadi C, Loomba M, Misra A, Sharma S, et al. Gender and the Digital Divide Across Urban Slums of New Delhi, India: Cross-Sectional Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 22;22(6):e14714.
    OpenUrl
  134. 134.↵
    Sagaro GG, Battineni G, Amenta F. Barriers to Sustainable Telemedicine Implementation in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review. Telemed Rep. 2020;1(1):8–15.
    OpenUrl
  135. 135.↵
    Ag Ahmed MA, Gagnon MP, Hamelin-Brabant L, Mbemba GIC, Alami H. A mixed methods systematic review of success factors of mhealth and telehealth for maternal health in Sub-Saharan Africa. mHealth. 2017;3:22.
  136. 136.↵
    Kruse CS, Williams K, Bohls J, Shamsi W. Telemedicine and health policy: A systematic review. Health Policy Technol. 2021 Mar;10(1):209–29.
    OpenUrl
  137. 137.↵
    Share of government expenditure in total health expenditure increases from 28.6 per cent in FY14 to 40.6 per cent in. Available from: https://pib.gov.in/pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1894902
  138. 138.↵
    Call for proposals “the G20 Digital Innovation Alliance (G20-DIA) to recognize and support innovators that have digital solutions” by the MEITY | Principal Scientific Adviser. Available from: https://www.psa.gov.in/innerPage/psa-initiatives-covid/call-proposals-g20-digital-innovation-alliance-g20-dia-recognize-and-support/4475
  139. 139.↵
    Haleem A, Javaid M, Singh RP, Suman R. Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications. Sens Int. 2021;2:100117.
  140. 140.↵
    1. Rivas H,
    2. Wac K
    Goldenberg MG, Grantcharov TP. Enhancing Clinical Performance and Improving Patient Safety Using Digital Health. In: Rivas H, Wac K, editors. Digital Health: Scaling Healthcare to the World. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 235–48. (Health Informatics). Available from: doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61446-5_17
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  141. 141.↵
    Owoyemi A, Osuchukwu JI, Azubuike C, Ikpe RK, Nwachukwu BC, Akinde CB, et al. Digital Solutions for Community and Primary Health Workers: Lessons From Implementations in Africa. Front Digit Health. 2022 Jun 3;4:876957.
  142. 142.↵
    Bronsoler A, Doyle J. The Impact of New Technology on the Healthcare Workforce.
  143. 143.↵
    Gupta N, Gupta MK, Joshi NK, Mantri N, Sridevi G, Patel M, et al. Is telemedicine a holy grail in healthcare policy: clinicians’ and patients’ perspectives from an Apex Institution in Western India. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Feb 15;23(1):161.
    OpenUrl
  144. 144.↵
    Zhu L, Jiang X, Cao J. Factors Affecting Continuance Intention in Non-Face-to-Face Telemedicine Services: Trust Typology and Privacy Concern Perspectives. Healthcare. 2023 Jan 28;11(3):374.
    OpenUrl
  145. 145.↵
    1. Fayn J
    Senbekov M, Saliev T, Bukeyeva Z, Almabayeva A, Zhanaliyeva M, Aitenova N, et al. The Recent Progress and Applications of Digital Technologies in Healthcare: A Review. Fayn J, editor. Int J Telemed Appl. 2020 Dec 3;2020:1–18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  146. 146.
    Deldar K, Bahaadinbeigy K, Tara SM. Teleconsultation and Clinical Decision Making: a Systematic Review. Acta Inform Medica AIM J Soc Med Inform Bosnia Herzeg Cas Drustva Za Med Inform BiH. 2016 Jul 16;24(4):286–92.
    OpenUrl
  147. 147.↵
    Almubarak H. The Potential Role of Telemedicine in Early Detection of Oral Cancer: A Literature Review. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022 Jul;14(Suppl 1):S19–23.
    OpenUrl
  148. 148.↵
    Barteit S, Guzek D, Jahn A, Bärnighausen T, Jorge MM, Neuhann F. Evaluation of e-learning for medical education in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Comput Educ. 2020 Feb;145:103726.
  149. 149.
    Gross G, Ling R, Richardson B, Quan N. In-Person or Virtual Training?: Comparing the Effectiveness of Community-Based Training. Am J Distance Educ. 2023 Jan 2;37(1):66–77.
    OpenUrl
  150. 150.↵
    Vaona A, Banzi R, Kwag KH, Rigon G, Cereda D, Pecoraro V, et al. E-learning for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 21;1(1):CD011736.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  151. 151.↵
    Sharma RS, Rohatgi A, Jain S, Singh D. The Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM): making of India’s Digital Health Story. CSI Trans ICT. 2023 Apr;11(1):3–9.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted October 28, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Barriers and Facilitators for the Use of Telehealth by Healthcare Providers (HCP) in India - A Scoping Review
Parth Sharma, Shirish Rao, Padmavathy Krishna Kumar, Aiswarya R Nair, Disha Agrawal, Siddhesh Zadey, S Gayathri, Rachna George Joseph, Girish Dayma, Liya Rafeekh, Shubhashis Saha, Sitanshi Sharma, SS Prakash, Venkatesan Sankarapandian, Preethi John, Vikram Patel
medRxiv 2023.10.28.23297653; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.28.23297653
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area