SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy / 2026 / Volume: 11 Issue: 2

PATIENT ATTITUDES TOWARD TELEHEALTH IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE: A QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS FOR SUSTAINABLE AND QUALITY-ORIENTED DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

Perihan Şenel Tekin(Ankara University)0000-0002-4513-7049
Yonca Özatkan(Ankara University)0000-0002-1388-1148
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Telehealth is most likely to be accepted when implemented as part of a hybrid, patient-centred primary care model.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Telehealth has become a central component of digital transformation in primary health care.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify peer-reviewed qualitative studies published in English between 1 January 2025 and 31 December 2025.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Telehealth is most likely to be accepted when implemented as part of a hybrid, patient-centred primary care model.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Telehealth · Primary health care · Digital transformation

Abstract

Telehealth has become a central component of digital transformation in primary health care. Although its operational benefits are well documented, a clearer understanding of patient attitudes is essential for ensuring patient-centred, equitable, and sustainable service delivery. This study aimed to explore and synthesise adult patients’ attitudes toward telehealth in primary health care, with particular attention to perceived benefits, experienced difficulties, and contextual influences on acceptance. This study was designed as a qualitative evidence synthesis and reported in accordance with the ENTREQ statement. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify peer-reviewed qualitative studies published in English between 1 January 2025 and 31 December 2025. Eligible studies examined adult patients’ experiences, perceptions, or attitudes regarding telehealth in primary care or primary-care-linked services. The study selection process was documented in accordance with the PRISMA framework. Data were synthesised through thematic synthesis, including line-by-line coding, development of descriptive themes, and generation of higher-order analytical interpretations. Seventeen studies were included. The synthesis showed that telehealth was generally perceived as a valuable but conditional mode of care. Patients particularly valued improved access, convenience, reduced travel burden, and support for follow-up and self-management. At the same time, they reported important concerns related to limited physical examination, communication quality, impersonality, technical difficulties, and uneven digital capability. Attitudes were strongly shaped by telehealth modality, consultation purpose, continuity of care, prior patient–clinician relationships, and social and technological conditions. Adult patients’ attitudes toward telehealth in primary health care are nuanced and context-dependent rather than uniformly positive or negative. Sustainable integration of telehealth requires more than technological availability; it depends on relational continuity, clear communication, clinical appropriateness, and equitable digital access. Telehealth is most likely to be accepted when implemented as part of a hybrid, patient-centred primary care model.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tekin, P. Ş., Özatkan, Y. (2026). PATIENT ATTITUDES TOWARD TELEHEALTH IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE: A QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS FOR SUSTAINABLE AND QUALITY-ORIENTED DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION. International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, Volume: 11 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.33457/ijhsrp.1940228

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (33)

  1. A. Kichloo, M. Albosta, K. Dettloff, F. Wani, Z. El-Amir, J. Singh, M. Aljadah, R. C. Chakinala, A. K. Kanugula, S. Solanki, and S. Chugh, “Telemedicine, the current COVID-19 pandemic and the future: A narrative review and perspectives moving forward in the USA,” Fam. Med. Community Health, vol. 8, Art. no. e000530, 2020, doi: 10.1136/fmch-2020-000530.
  2. S. Mahdavi, M. Fekri, S. Mohammadi-Sarab, M. Mehmandoost, and E. Zarei, “The use of telemedicine in family medicine: A scoping review,” BMC Health Serv. Res., vol. 25, Art. no. 376, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12449-7.
  3. R. Ftouni, B. AlJardali, M. Hamdanieh, L. Ftouni, and N. Salem, “Challenges of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review,” BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak., vol. 22, Art. no. 207, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01952-0.
  4. C. Leighton, N. Joseph-Williams, A. Porter, A. Edwards, and A. Cooper, “A theory-based analysis of the implementation of online asynchronous telemedicine platforms into primary care practices using Normalisation Process Theory,” BMC Prim. Care, vol. 26, Art. no. 27, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s12875-025-02717-0.
  5. G. F. Morillon, M. Guillon, M. Laberge, A. Sowanou, and T. G. Poder, “Patients’ perspective about synchronous teleconsultation with a general practitioner: A mixed-method systematic literature review,” BMC Prim. Care, vol. 26, Art. no. 259, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s12875-025-02931-w.
  6. M. Peyroteo, I. A. Ferreira, L. B. Elvas, J. C. Ferreira, and L. V. Lapão, “Remote monitoring systems for patients with chronic diseases in primary health care: Systematic review,” JMIR mHealth uHealth, vol. 9, no. 12, Art. no. e28285, 2021, doi: 10.2196/28285.
  7. D. Senyel, E. Boutros, M. Frith, F. Savira, L. Tong, B. K. Y. Asiamah-Asare, R. Norman, S. Robinson, and J. H. Boyd, “The (dis-)advantages of telehealth consultation for allied health services: A scoping review,” BMC Health Serv. Res., early access, 2026, doi: 10.1186/s12913-026-14504-3.
  8. Z. Xue, N. Zhou, Y. Wu, and H. Qi, “Digital exclusion in healthcare services: A scoping review,” Int. J. Equity Health, vol. 25, Art. no. 37, 2026, doi: 10.1186/s12939-025-02755-1.
  9. P. Eriksson, F. Gabrielsson-Järhult, H. Thorold Nylin, and E. Nilsson, “Patients’ experiences with using a digital platform for chat-based consultation in primary health care in Sweden: Qualitative study,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 27, Art. no. e77478, 2025, doi: 10.2196/77478.
  10. C. Gray, A. Engstrom Buggaveeti, T. Urech, and A. Vashi, “Veteran experiences and satisfaction with Veterans Affairs call centers’ tele-triage and virtual urgent care appointments: Qualitative evaluation,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 27, Art. no. e80656, 2025, doi: 10.2196/80656.
  11. A. Jaranka, G. H. Nilsson, T. Stenfors, M. Hägglund, P. Papachristou, and M. Taloyan, “Patient’s perceptions of a centralized virtual ward for remote patient monitoring in primary care: Qualitative study,” JMIR Hum. Factors, vol. 12, Art. no. e78780, 2025, doi: 10.2196/78780.
  12. E. P. M. Karregat, P. Vooijs, E. Wierda, R. Harskamp, W. Lucassen, J. C. L. Himmelreich, and E. P. Moll van Charante, “Patient experiences with a smartwatch 1L-ECG versus traditional Holter monitoring for ambulatory cardiac rhythm monitoring: A qualitative study,” BMJ Open, vol. 15, Art. no. e101557, 2025, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101557.
  13. H. Leach, A. Eccles, C. A. Chew-Graham, and H. Atherton, “Patient experiences of remote consulting with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis and fibromyalgia: A qualitative study,” BJGP Open, vol. 9, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0079.
  14. C. Leonard, R. R. Kenney, A. Syed, E. Hess, C. Wilson, A. Smith, C. Schihl, J. Lai, P. Reaven, and G. Behari, “Patient perceptions of rural telehealth diabetes control program in Department of Veteran’s Affairs,” J. Rural Health, vol. 41, no. 2, Art. no. e70027, 2025, doi: 10.1111/jrh.70027.
  15. I. Litchfield, G. Delanerolle, L. Harper, and S. Dunning, “Understanding acceptability of AI triage tools amongst underserved populations: Lessons from the early phases of co-production with Bangladeshi communities in Birmingham, UK,” Health Expect., vol. 28, no. 6, Art. no. e70523, 2025, doi: 10.1111/hex.70523.
  16. S. Müller, A. Ritter-von Kramer, J. Tönnies, A. Wildenauer, M. Wensing, H. C. Friederich, and M. W. Haun, “Engaging underrepresented patient groups in specialised treatment: Qualitative results from the PROVIDE-C randomised trial on integrated mental health video consultations for depression and anxiety,” BMC Public Health, vol. 25, Art. no. 3817, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-25235-1.
  17. N. Newhouse, Y. K. Bartlett, S. C. Simao, L. Miles, R. Cholerton, C. Kenning, L. Locock, V. Williams, D. P. French, R. Rea, and A. Farmer, “Experiences of using a digital text messaging intervention to support oral medication adherence for people living with type 2 diabetes: Qualitative process evaluation,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 27, Art. no. e70203, 2025, doi: 10.2196/70203.
  18. M. Nyqvist, E. Lithner, J. Hall, T. Ekman, and E. Lange, “Experiences of video-based and in-person initial consultations in individuals presenting with knee-related symptoms: A qualitative comparison,” Physiother. Theory Pract., early access, 2025, doi: 10.1080/09593985.2025.2597387.
  19. T. Østerbø, G. Hovland, S. Ytrehus, D. Kyrkjebø, E. Zakariassen, and O. T. Kleiven, “Experiences of patients with complex needs at municipal emergency outpost satellites,” Scand. J. Prim. Health Care, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 733–744, 2025, doi: 10.1080/02813432.2025.2502095.
  20. V. Sexton, J. Dale, C. Bryce, and H. Atherton, “Exploring two-step and one-step urgent care telephone triage: A UK-based semi-structured interview study,” BJGP Open, vol. 9, no. 4, 2025, doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0270.
  21. K. Söderhielm, M. Tistad, C. Ytterberg, and S. Guidetti, “Experiences of F@ce 2.0: A person-centred intervention for home-based rehabilitation after stroke supported by digital technology—A qualitative study,” BMJ Open, vol. 15, Art. no. e089147, 2025, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089147.
  22. A. K. C. Wong, X. Lu, J. X. Wang, R. S. Y. Lin, J. J. Su, R. M. Wang, and V. W. Y. Kwok, “Navigating the boundaries of teleconsultation: Capabilities, limitations, and pathways for improvement: Qualitative study of the experiences of patients with stroke,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 27, Art. no. e75841, 2025, doi: 10.2196/75841.
  23. H. Woodall, R. Evans, L. McArthur, T. Sen Gupta, R. Ward, and K. Brumpton, “Can culturally safe general practice telehealth overcome barriers to care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians? A qualitative study,” BMJ Open, vol. 15, Art. no. e089436, 2025, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089436.
  24. K. Wu, M. Dang Nguyen, G. Rouleau, R. Azavedo, D. Srinivasan, and L. Desveaux, “Understanding how virtual care has shifted primary care interactions and patient experience: A qualitative analysis,” J. Telemed. Telecare, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 73–81, 2025, doi: 10.1177/1357633X231167905.
  25. J. Zhao, C. Su, X. Zhu, C. Cai, W. Liu, and X. Ma, “Health care experiences of educated young adults with blindness in the digital age: Qualitative study,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 27, Art. no. e79587, 2025, doi: 10.2196/79587.
  26. D. Schlegel, “Combined telemedicine-first and direct primary care as a promising model of healthcare delivery,” J. Telemed. Telecare, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 1493–1499, 2025, doi: 10.1177/1357633X241300725.
  27. T. N.-B. Lam, Y. Shahab, and P. Lau, “General practitioners’ experiences in managing patients in clinical trials conducted by non-GP specialists: An exploratory qualitative study,” J. Clin. Transl. Sci., vol. 9, Art. no. e287, 2025, doi: 10.1017/cts.2025.10217.
  28. S. Vokksepp, K. Lubi, and M.-L. Elland, “Oncological follow-up care in digital era: Communication complexities between primary and speciality care physicians,” J. Commun. Healthc., early access, 2025, doi: 10.1080/17538068.2025.2609033.
  29. F. Omidi and D. Pati, “What shapes telehealth? The role of environment and technology in communication quality,” Health Environ. Res. Des. J., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 68–82, 2026, doi: 10.1177/19375867251396068.
  30. L. M. König, C. Betz, M. Al Masri, and T. Bartelmeß, “Health behaviours and mobile intervention use in patients recruited from general practitioners’ practices in rural Bavaria,” Health Psychol. Behav. Med., vol. 13, no. 1, Art. no. 2444244, 2025, doi: 10.1080/21642850.2024.2444244.
  31. P. D. Rollins, S. King, A. Majcher, B. D. Hughes, E. A. Newman, and E. E. Perone, “The first step is knowing: Quantifying social need through screening in a pediatric surgery clinic,” J. Surg. Res., vol. 317, pp. 493–499, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2025.11.055.
  32. A. Aljahan, R. E. Jordan, and J. Hodgkinson, “COVID-19 and its impact on healthcare services provided to patients with COPD: A qualitative study,” BMJ Open Respir. Res., vol. 12, Art. no. e003196, 2025, doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2025-003196.
  33. S. Ling and A. Zavar, “Empowering health: Model for sustainable AI implementation,” in From Insights to Action: Empowering Health, G. Strudwick et al., Eds. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press, 2025, pp. 47–51, doi: 10.3233/SHTI250012.