The psychometric properties of the Indonesian version of the Willingness to use telemedicine questionnaire in pharmacy students

Main Article Content

Susi Ari Kristina https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4248-6830
Sofa Dewi Alfian https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5419-8938
Ivan Surya Pradipta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7151-0783
Elida Zairina https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0845-4640
Eelko Hak https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0849-7210

Keywords

Telemedicine, willingness to use, pharmacy students, psychometric, Indonesia

Abstract

Backgound: The Willingness to Use Telemedicine Questionnaire (WTQ) was translated into Indonesian and cross-culturally adapted with the intention of analyzing the validity and reliability of the surveys. Our study aims to translate, cross-culturally adapt the Willingness to Use Telemedicine Questionnaire (WTQ) into the Indonesian version and analyze the questionnaires’ psychometric properties. Methods: In Yogyakarta province, 327 pharmacy students were conveniently recruited. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to gauge internal consistency. Analyzing the results of 60 patients who were retested one week later allowed for the calculation of the test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to assess the construct validity. Additionally, an investigation of the WTQ’s exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency for subscores was done. The mean age was 21.68 ±2.43 years. The internal consistency of each item and the overall WTQ score were excellent (>0.80; ranged from 0.856 to 0.977). The test-retest reliability of all items and the WTQ’s overall score was between satisfactory and outstanding (0.856–0.977). Strong association (r = 0.923, P 0.001) existed between WTQ and WTPQ. The WTQ has high factor loading scores (0.621–0.843). Conclusion: The Indonesian WTQ is reliable and valid among university students. 

Abstract 292 | PDF Downloads 379

References

1. Galea MDF. Telemedicine in Rehabilitation. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2019;30(2):473-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PMR.2018.12.002
2. World Health Organization. Telemedicine: Opportunities and developments in Member State | WHO | Regional Office for Africa. World Health Organization. Published 2010. Accessed November 26, 2022. https://www.afro.who.int/publications/
telemedicine-opportunities-and-developments-member-state
3. Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B, et al. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016242. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016242
4. Ayatollahi H, Sarabi FZP, Langarizadeh M. Clinicians’ Knowledge and Perception of Telemedicine Technology. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2015;12(Fall). Accessed November 26, 2022. /pmc/articles/PMC4632872/
5. Zanaboni P, Wootton R. Adoption of telemedicine: From pilot stage to routine delivery. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-1/FIGURES/2
6. Portnoy J, Waller M, Elliott T. Telemedicine in the Era of COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(5):1489-1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAIP.2020.03.008
7. Rogante M, Grigioni M, Cordella D, et al. Ten years of telerehabilitation: A literature overview of technologies and clinical applications. NeuroRehabilitation. 2010;27(4):287-304. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-2010-0612
8. Hailey D, Roine R, Ohinmaa A, et al. Evidence of benefit from telerehabilitation in routine care: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(6):281-287. https://doi.org/10.1258/JTT.2011.101208
9. Ibrahim M, Phing CW, Palaian S. (PDF) Evaluation of knowledge and perception of Malaysian health professionals about telemedicine. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Published 2010. Accessed November 26, 2022. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/285524218_Evaluation_of_knowledge_and_perception_of_Malaysian_health_professionals_about_telemedicine10. Bakken S, Grullon-Figueroa L, Izquierdo R, et al. Development, Validation, and Use of English and Spanish Versions of the 
Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):660. https://doi.org/10.1197/JAMIA.M2146 
11. Gogia SB, Maeder A, Mars M, et al. Unintended Consequences of Tele Health and their Possible Solutions. Contribution of the IMIA Working Group on Telehealth. Yearb Med Inform. 2016;(1):41-46. https://doi.org/10.15265/IY-2016-012
12. Chellaiyan V, Nirupama A, Taneja N. Telemedicine in India: Where do we stand? J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(6):1872. 
https://doi.org/10.4103/JFMPC.JFMPC_264_1913. MacNeill V, Sanders C, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Experiences of front-line health professionals in the delivery of telehealth: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2014;64(624). https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP14X680485
14. Shahpori R, Hebert M, Kushniruk A, et al. Telemedicine in the intensive care unit environment--a survey of the attitudes and perspectives of critical care clinicians. J Crit Care. 2011;26(3):328.e9-328.e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCRC.2010.07.013
15. Malhotra P, Ramachandran A, Chauhan R, Soni D, et al. Assessment of Knowledge, Perception, and Willingness of using Telemedicine among Medical and Allied Healthcare Students Studying in Private Institutions. Telehealth and Medicine Today. 
2020;5(4). https://doi.org/10.30953/tmt.v5.228
16. Klaassen B, van Beijnum BJF, Hermens HJ. Usability in telemedicine systems-A literature survey. Int J Med Inform. 2016;93:57-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJMEDINF.2016.06.004
17. Biruk K, Abetu E. Knowledge and Attitude of Health Professionals toward Telemedicine in Resource-Limited Settings: A CrossSectional Study in North West Ethiopia. J Healthc Eng. 2018;2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2389268
18. Muhamad Musharaf B, Tanwir K, Aqeel SC. Perceptions of post-graduate medical stuents, regarding effectiveness of telemedicine [TM] as an instructional tool. Published online 2014;614-619.
19. Albarrak AI, Mohammed R, Almarshoud N, et al. Assessment of physician’s knowledge, perception and willingness of telemedicine in Riyadh region, Saudi Arabia. J Infect Public Health. 2021;14(1):97-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JIPH.2019.04.006
20. Zayapragassarazan Z, Kumar S. Awareness, Knowledge, Attitude and Skills of Telemedicine among Health Professional Faculty Working in Teaching Hospitals. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(3):JC01-JC04. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/19080.7431
21. Acharya RV, Rai JJ. Evaluation of patient and doctor perception toward the use of telemedicine in Apollo Tele Health Services, India. J Family Med Prim Care. 2016;5(4):798. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.201174
22. Khan I, Dhanalakshami MK, Naveena JH. Effectiveness of SIM on Knowledge Regarding Telemedicine among the Staff Nurses. International Journal of Nursing Critical Care. 2015;1(2):14-19. https://doi.org/10.37628/IJNCC.V1I1.103
23. Thong HK, Wong DKC, Gendeh HS, et al. Perception of telemedicine among medical practitioners in Malaysia during COVID-19. J Med Life. 2021;14(4):468-480. https://doi.org/10.25122/JML-2020-0119
24. Becker CD, Dandy K, Gaujean M, et al. Legal Perspectives on Telemedicine Part 1: Legal and Regulatory Issues. Perm J. 2019;23. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/18-293
25. John O, Sarbadhikari SN, Prabhu T, et al. Implementation and Experiences of Telehealth: Balancing Policies with Practice in Countries of South Asia, Kuwait, and the European Union. Interact J Med Res. 2022;11(1):e30755. https://doi.org/10.2196/30755
26. Sandberg CEJ, Knight SR, Qureshi AU, et al. Using Telemedicine to Diagnose Surgical Site Infections in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(8):e13309. https://doi.org/10.2196/13309
27. Chu C, Cram P, Pang A, et al. Rural Telemedicine Use Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Repeated Cross-sectional Study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(4):e26960. https://doi.org/10.2196/26960

Most read articles by the same author(s)