Physician perceptions of the effect of telemedicine on rural retention and recruitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a postal survey of 140 family and community specialist physicians in a predominantly rural area which had received clinical telemedicine services and videoconferenced continuing medical education (CME) for two years. The questionnaire contained 46 items. The response rate was 47%. Most respondents (83%) reported having attended videoconferenced CME sessions and 45% reported having referred patients for teleconsultation. Physicians in more rural areas used these services more frequently. Ratings of two statements assessing the value of telemedicine in community support were significantly and positively correlated with the number of videoconferenced CME sessions attended and the number of telemedicine services used. In relation to their decision to stay in their community for at least one year, respondents rated telemedicine lower in importance than all but one of 17 other factors expected to influence physician recruitment and retention in rural communities. The influences on physician rural recruitment and retention are complex. However, telemedicine was used more frequently by the more rural physicians, and there was a relationship between higher usage and higher ratings of its value as a community support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".