The Potential Effects of Telehealth on the Canadian Health Workforce: Where Is the Evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature reports that telehealth holds the potential to positively alter the health workforce, yet there is little evidence to support and substantiate this commonly held belief. This qualitative study examines the anticipated and realized effects of telehealth on health workforce concerns. The six themes examined include the distribution of expertise of health professionals, effect on skills base, recruitment and retention of health professionals, staffing of telehealth initiatives, appropriate use of health care resources, and other workforce outcomes. Twelve telehealth initiatives were selected for study - one from each of Canada's provinces and territories. Projects included eight consultation applications, two administrative information systems, and two community-based programs. A questionnaire guided the initial and 6-month follow-up interviews with project coordinators. The six themes were independently validated for accuracy, interpretation, consistency, and saturation. Positive effects from telehealth applications were reported in the theme areas addressing expertise distribution, skills base, recruitment/retention, and health care use. A wider range of responses was reported in the theme area addressing staffing. The need for training and informal support networks is stressed. Until telehealth is more widely diffused, the total impact on workforce issues will not be known. However, studies such as this illustrate that telehealth has the potential to play a key role in workforce issues, as well as in future health workforce planning, recruitment, training, and job sharing.
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 | 0.036 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".