Development and Validation of the Kazakhstan Version of the Questionnaire Based on the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire and Model for Assessment of Telemedicine Models for Evaluating the Usability and Effectiveness of Telemedicine Services Among Physicians: Multiphase Cross-Sectional Study

Kulzhamila Kenessova, С.А. Туктибаева, Myrzabek Rysbekov, Abay K. Baigenzhin, Aigul Sultangaziyeva, Bakhytzhan Alimov

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.2196/80693
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Background: Kazakhstan has lacked validated tools to comprehensively assess physicians' perceptions, usability, and perceived effectiveness of telemedicine services. International frameworks such as the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) and the Model for Assessment of Telemedicine (MAST) have not previously been adapted to the national clinical and organizational context. Objective: This study aims to develop and validate TUQ-MAST-KZ, a Kazakhstan-adapted questionnaire integrating components of the TUQ and MAST models to assess physicians' perceptions, usability, and effectiveness of telemedicine services. Methods: A multiphase study was conducted, including literature review, questionnaire development, linguistic and cultural adaptation, expert content validity assessment, and pilot testing. An online survey (Google Forms) was administered to 156 physicians representing different regions and levels of health care delivery in Kazakhstan. Internal consistency (Cronbach α) and content validity indices were calculated. Additional evaluations covered clarity, structure, and practical applicability. Results: The final TUQ-MAST-KZ instrument contains 27 items capturing technological, clinical, organizational, and behavioral dimensions of telemedicine use. The scale demonstrated high content validity (scale-level content validity index=0.94). Internal consistency was excellent, with an overall Cronbach α of 0.924. Respondents reported that the questionnaire was clearly structured, easy to complete, and relevant to clinical practice. Organizational items identified key barriers to telemedicine adoption, including limited infrastructure, insufficient managerial support, and the need for additional training. Conclusions: TUQ-MAST-KZ is a valid, reliable, and practice-oriented instrument for assessing physicians' perceptions of telemedicine services in Kazakhstan. It can support digital health monitoring, implementation analysis, educational planning, and policy development. Future studies should evaluate its applicability across broader samples and diverse clinical specialties.