Telemedicine and developing countries - successful implementation will require a shared approach

Telemedicine is often proposed as a solution to certain health-care problems in the developing world. There seems to be little published experience on which to make judgements. A literature search revealed 39 articles, of which only two related to any kind of direct clinical work; most of them were review articles or editorials. The majority of the work reported was educational in nature, and there has been little clinical experience. It seems probable that telemedicine can help with the education of health-care workers and patients; it seems likely that it could bring major benefits to the organization of health-care. Without proper trials, it will be impossible to determine the place of health-care in the developing world. Trials are the only way in which rational decisions can ultimately be reached regarding whether scarce resources should be devoted to telemedicine in developing countries, or whether they should be employed in more conventional health-care measures whose outcomes are known to be cost-effective.

An analysis of why telehealth systems in Australia have not always succeeded

Telehealth programmes are rather similar to humans in the way that they are planned, develop, grow and ultimately die or disappear. To achieve good life expectancy for a telehealth programme there appear to be three major needs: nurturing, which includes the provision of money, ideas, education, training and innovation; experience, which involves an integrated management process, the achievement of long and wide patterns of usage, the development of updated policies and procedures and the involvement of multiple disciplines; success, which involves evidence of outcomes, evaluation and research, and, most important, the sharing of information through scientific and popular press publications, and conferences and collaborations with internal and external groups. The future of telehealth in Australia is at a watershed. There are now a substantial number of programmes, and there has been a large amount of financial and human investment in telehealth around the nation. There is, however, no forum for national leadership, no national association and little support at federal government level.