Telehealth and the recruitment and retention of physicians in rural and remote regions: a Delphi study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The availability of a medical workforce is a growing concern for rural and remote communities across Canada. In the last decade, various telehealth experiences have highlighted the potential impact of this technology on professional as well as organizational practices. But could telehealth be a strategy to attract and maintain physicians in rural and remote communities? The objective of this study was to identify a reliable list of recruitment and retention factors on which telehealth could have an impact. METHODS: We conducted 2 literature reviews and a Delphi study among 12 telehealth experts across Canada. RESULTS: The literature reviews identified 7 categories of recruitment and retention factors on which telehealth could have an impact: 1) individual, 2) familial, 3) contextual, 4) professional, 5) organizational, 6) educational, and 7) economic. CONCLUSIONS: Experts consulted through the Delphi study reached consensus on 31 out of 34 of the proposed statements about the impact of telehealth. This consensus can now be used as a conceptual model for further studies on the topic.
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 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".