Table 3 Perception of a remote electrocardiography monitoring system by type of participant
Factor | Category | Status (n) | Subtotal (n) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patient and guardian | Nurse | Doctor | Others | |||
Perceived need | Very much | 27 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 34 |
Much | 119 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 137 | |
Average | 63 | 4 | 6 | – | 73 | |
Little | 12 | 6 | – | – | 18 | |
None | 3 | – | – | – | 3 | |
Most important featurea | Home monitoring | 106 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 126 |
Monitoring while out | 51 | 5 | – | 1 | 57 | |
Monitoring all the time | 57 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 66 | |
Other | 8 | 6 | – | – | 14 | |
Usage intentions | Yes | 168 | 10 | 5 | 11 | 194 |
No | 56 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 71 | |
Desired service provider | Government | 62 | 2 | – | 4 | 68 |
Hospitals | 147 | 13 | 10 | 8 | 178 | |
No matter | 15 | 3 | – | 1 | 19 | |
Desired main agenta | Public institution | 181 | 12 | – | 10 | 203 |
Private institution | 43 | 6 | 10 | 2 | 61 | |
Development barriersa | Low IT | 42 | 8 | – | 6 | 56 |
Lack of advertisement | 62 | 3 | 1 | – | 66 | |
Lack of knowledge | 58 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 65 | |
Fear of low personal information security | 53 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 66 | |
Other | 8 | – | 1 | 2 | 11 | |