A study of a rural community's readiness for telehealth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A qualitative approach was used to explore the readiness of a rural community for the implementation of telehealth services. There were four domains of interest: patient, practitioner, public and organization. Sixteen semistructured telephone interviews (three to five in each domain) were carried out with key informants and recorded on audio-tape. Two community awareness sessions were held, which were followed by five audio-taped focus groups (with five to eight people in each) in the practitioner, patient and public domains. In addition, two in-depth interviews were conducted with community physicians. Analysis of the data suggested that there were four types of community readiness: core, engagement, structural and non-readiness. The level of readiness varied across domains. There were six main themes: core readiness; structural readiness; projection of benefits; assessment of risk; awareness and education; and intra-group and inter-group dynamics. The results of the study can be used to investigate the readiness of rural and remote communities for telehealth, which should improve the chance of successful implementation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".