Planning Telehealth for Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation in Rural Communities: Understanding Stakeholder Perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) in rural communities have less access to cardiac specialty care. Telehealth offers a viable approach to provide cardiac care, yet little is known about patients' and providers' views on telehealth's potential to support rural patients with AF. This qualitative descriptive study examines patient and health providers' perspectives, an important first step in planning a telehealth initiative. Eight patients with AF, along with one partner from rural communities, were recruited through an urban-based AF clinic. Five providers were recruited through professional practice leads in the health region. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with both stakeholder groups. The overriding theme was variability in patient and provider receptiveness to telehealth. Receptiveness reflected differences in past experience with telehealth, in perceived adequacy of rural health services, and in perceived gaps in AF care. These are important considerations in planning effective and sustainable telehealth in rural communities.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it