Report: Telepaediatrics in Rural and Remote Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rural and remote communities in Australia and Canada experience barriers to accessing healthcare services (1). These barriers are especially pronounced when attempting to access more specialized health care services, such as paediatric (2–4). Both countries have implemented programs that aim to bridge the gap between rural communities and specialized healthcare. One such service is telepaediatrics. Telepaediatrics, as part of telehealth, refers to any paediatric health-related service, network, or medical tool that transmits voice, data, images and information through telecommunication programs as part of providing health services (5–7). Telehealth services are ideal because they remove the need to relocate the rural patient to urban specialist sites (5–7). In a WHO survey (2010), 60% of member countries had telehealth services in place but only 30% of these programs were implemented as part of routine care (8). Only 3 member countries had established telepaediatric services in place (8). No previous investigations examine the use of telehealth programs in urban versus rural settings (8). This review aims to identify the common barriers to telepaediatric services in rural Australia and Canada and outlines suggestions for future 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".