Telehealth as a Means of Enabling Health Equity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this paper is to provide a consensus review on telehealth delivery prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop a set of recommendations for designing telehealth services and tools that contribute to system resilience and equitable health. METHODS: The IMIA-Telehealth Working Group (WG) members conducted a two-step approach to understand the role of telehealth in enabling global health equity. We first conducted a consensus review on the topic followed by a modified Delphi process to respond to four questions related to the role telehealth can play in developing a resilient and equitable health system. RESULTS: Fifteen WG members from eight countries participated in the Delphi process to share their views. The experts agreed that while telehealth services before and during COVID-19 pandemic have enhanced the delivery of and access to healthcare services, they were also concerned that global telehealth delivery has not been equal for everyone. The group came to a consensus that health system concepts including technology, financing, access to medical supplies and equipment, and governance capacity can all impact the delivery of telehealth services. CONCLUSION: Telehealth played a significant role in delivering healthcare services during the pandemic. However, telehealth delivery has also led to unintended consequences (UICs) including inequity issues and an increase in the digital divide. Telehealth practitioners, professionals and system designers therefore need to purposely design for equity as part of achieving broader health system goals.
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 | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".