ADOPTION OF VIRTUAL CARE IN A MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS’ PERCEPTIONS, BARRIERS, AND FACILITATING CONDITIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37268/mjphm/vol.26/no.1/art.3570Keywords:
Telehealth, virtual care, perception, barriers, training, governmentAbstract
The COVID-19 pandemic marked a tipping point in the global adoption of virtual care (VC). In Malaysia, VC gained traction notably in primary healthcare, while adoption within hospital settings has yet to fully embrace its potential. This study aims to understand VC adoption in a tertiary government hospital, focusing on healthcare providers’ perceptions, barriers, and facilitating conditions influencing integration. Informed by theoretical frameworks, this qualitative study examined provider characteristics, perceived ease of use (PEOU), perceived usefulness (PU), subjective norms (SN), barriers, and facilitating conditions. Semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of purposively sampled healthcare providers (HCPs) and administrators from outpatient departments were transcribed and analyzed through directed content analysis. Findings indicate that VC adoption and practice varied across departments, often driven by individual- or department-led initiatives. PEOU is shaped by patient digital literacy and infrastructure access, influencing platform and modality selection. PU—encompassing operational efficiency, safety, convenience, and accessibility—emerged as a salient influence on adoption intentions. However, organizational constraints, communication challenges, and particularly limitations in clinical assessment limit these perceived benefits, contributing to concerns regarding effectiveness, quality, and medicolegal risk. SN was shaped by the nature of the work and departmental expectations. Facilitating conditions, including organizational support, infrastructure, policies, and training, were described as supporting factors influencing SN for greater uptake of VC. Providers emphasized the need for comprehensive training covering technical, clinical, and ethical aspects, with a preference for a flexible and interactive approach. This study refines the understanding of VC adoption in a tertiary government hospital by highlighting the interconnected and non-linear relationship between perceptions, barriers, and facilitating conditions in the VC adoption framework. Targeted strategies may promote more comprehensive and sustainable VC implementation, benefiting both patients and HCPs while improving healthcare delivery.
References
Singh D. Telemedicine and its potential for improving health equity and reducing disparities in healthcare access and outcomes – A systematic review. Int J Adv Res Eng Technol. 2023;14:24-35. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/X9NRU
Babaei N, Zamanzadeh V, Valizadeh L, et al. Virtual care in the health care system: A concept analysis. Scand J Caring Sci. 2024;38(1):35-46. doi:10.1111/scs.13227
Giacalone A, Marin L, Febbi M, et al. eHealth, telehealth, and telemedicine in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: Lessons learned and future perspectives. World J Clin Cases. 2022;10(8):2363-2368. doi:10.12998/wjcc.v10.i8.2363
Garavand A, Aslani N, Nadri H, et al. Acceptance of telemedicine technology among physicians: A systematic review. Inform Med Unlocked. 2022;30:100943. doi:10.1016/j.imu.2022.100943
Ghiwaa T, Khan I, White M, et al. Telemedicine adoption for healthcare delivery: A systematic review. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl. 2023;14(11):1230-1243. doi:10.14569/IJACSA.2023.01411125
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425-478. doi:10.2307/30036540
Ng SW, Hwong WY, Husin M, et al. Assessing the availability of teleconsultation and the extent of its use in Malaysian public primary care clinics: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(5):e34485. doi:10.2196/34485
Doyle L, McCabe C, Keogh B, et al. An overview of the qualitative descriptive design within nursing research. J Res Nurs JRN. 2020;25(5):443-455. doi:10.1177/1744987119880234
Neergaard MA, Olesen F, Andersen RS, et al. Qualitative description – the poor cousin of health research? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:52. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-52
Sullivan-Bolyai S, Bova C. Qualitative description: A “How-to” guide. UMass Chan Fac Res Publ. Published online 2021:1-40. doi:10.13028/8VWE-XC61
Kamal SA, Shafiq M, Kakria P. Investigating acceptance of telemedicine services through an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Technol Soc. 2020;60:101212. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101212
Ministry of Health, Malaysia. MyUBAT - KKM. An evolution in the digitalisation of pharmacy services. Accessed September 1, 2025. https://myubat.pharmacy.gov.my/?lang=en
Seivert S, Badowski ME. The rise of telemedicine: Lessons from a global pandemic. EMJ Innov. Published online February 9, 2021:64-69. doi:10.33590/emjinnov/20-00239
Tiwari BB, Kulkarni A, Zhang H, et al. Utilization of telehealth services in low- and middle-income countries amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative summary. Glob Health Action. 2023;16(1):2179163. doi:10.1080/16549716.2023.2179163
Ndwabe H, Basu A, Mohammed J. Post pandemic analysis on comprehensive utilization of telehealth and telemedicine. Clin EHealth. 2024;7:5-14. doi:10.1016/j.ceh.2023.12.002
Lickness J, Bachanas P, Tohme R, et al. A. COVID-19 mitigation measures to maintain access to essential health services: New opportunities with long-term benefits. Pan Afr Med J. 2021;40:254. doi:10.11604/pamj.2021.40.254.31264
Gajarawala SN, Pelkowski JN. Telehealth benefits and barriers. J Nurse Pract JNP. 2021;17(2):218-221. doi:10.1016/j.nurpra.2020.09.013
Haleem A, Javaid M, Singh RP, et al. Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications. Sens Int. 2021;2:100117. doi:10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100117
Gadenz SD, Basso J, de Oliviera PRBP, et al. Telehealth to support referral management in a universal health system: A before-and-after study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1012. doi:10.1186/s12913-021-07028-5
Nayakarathna R, Neilson H, MacDougall D, et al. Virtual care use in primary care or specialty care settings: Rapid review. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2022. Accessed November 11, 2024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK603378/
Abdelghany IK, AlMatar R, Al-Haqan A, et al. Exploring healthcare providers’ perspectives on virtual care delivery: Insights into telemedicine services. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):1. doi:10.1186/s12913-023-10244-w
Curran VR, Hollett A, Peddle E. Virtual care and COVID-19: A survey study of adoption, satisfaction and continuing education preferences of healthcare providers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Front Digit Health. 2023;4:970112. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.970112
Aerts A, Bogdan-Martin D. Virtual health and care: Six steps for inclusive policymaking. BMC Glob Public Health. 2024;2(1):19. doi:10.1186/s44263-024-00050-9
Tan SH, Wong CK, Yap YY, et al. Factors influencing telemedicine adoption among physicians in the Malaysian healthcare system: A revisit. Digit Health. 2024;10:1-26. doi:10.1177/20552076241257050
Adenuga KI, Iahad NA, Miskon S. Towards reinforcing telemedicine adoption amongst clinicians in Nigeria. Int J Med Inf. 2017;104:84-96. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.05.008
Alghamdi SM, Aldhahir AM, Alqahtani JS, et al. Healthcare providers’ perception and barriers concerning the use of telehealth applications in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study. Healthcare. 2022;10(8):1527. doi:10.3390/healthcare10081527
Solimini R, Busardò FP, Gibelli F, et al. Ethical and legal challenges of telemedicine in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Medicina (Mex). 2021;57(12):1314. doi:10.3390/medicina57121314
Rettinger L, Kuhn S. Barriers to video call–based telehealth in allied health professions and nursing: Scoping review and mapping process. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e46715. doi:10.2196/46715
White SJ, Nguyen AD, Roger P, et al. Tailoring communication practices to support effective delivery of telehealth in general practice. BMC Prim Care. 2024;25:232. doi:10.1186/s12875-024-02441-1
Payne R, Clarke A, Swann N, et al. Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: Multimethod qualitative study combining Safety I and Safety II analysis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2024;33(9):573-586. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016674
Tong SYK, Jackson TM, Lau AYS. Virtual physical examination in teleconsultation: A scoping review. Int J Med Inf. 2024;191:105561. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105561
Gray C, Wray C, Tisdale R, et al. Factors influencing how providers assess the appropriateness of video visits: Interview study with primary and specialty health care providers. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(8):e38826. doi:10.2196/38826
Barber CEH, Levy DM, Ahluwalia V, et al. Best practices for virtual care: A consensus statement from the Canadian Rheumatology Association. J Rheumatol. 2022;49(4):408-418. doi:10.3899/jrheum.211017
Hoaglin MC, Brenner LH, Teo W, et al. Medicolegal sidebar: Telemedicine—New opportunities and new risks. Clin Orthop. 2021;479(8):1671-1673. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000001856
Mohammed HT, Hyseni L, Bui V, et al. Exploring the use and challenges of implementing virtual visits during COVID-19 in primary care and lessons for sustained use. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(6):e0253665. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253665
Braund H, Dalgarno N, Ritsma B, et al. Exploring virtual care clinical experience from non-physician healthcare providers (VCAPE). SSM - Qual Res Health. 2023;3:100289. doi:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2023.100289
Stovel RG, Dubois D, Chan TM, et al. Virtual care in CanMEDS 2025. Can Med Educ J. 2023;14(1):22-26. doi:10.36834/cmej.75439
