MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283826144 · doi:10.2196/39427

Identifying Feasible and Impactful Approaches to Implementing Telehealth in Rural Washington Communities: Group Concept Mapping Study

2022· article· en· W4283826144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janessa M. Graves, Season Hoard, B. J. Anderson, Kevin D. Harris, Christina M. Sanders

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthRural areaBrainstormingBusinessHealth carePublic relationsNursingGeographyPsychologyTelemedicineMedicinePolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The expansion of telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic increased access to health care services for many US residents. This is particularly true for provider-to-patient telehealth communication. In rural communities, telehealth can increase access to health care services that would otherwise be limited due to geographic and distance barriers. The adoption of telehealth in rural communities, however, has been hindered by technology barriers, lack of community awareness, and lack of provider buy-in. The purpose of this study was to explore community-identified approaches to improving telehealth access in rural North Central Washington. Objective The aim of this study was to identify, group, and rate approaches to expanding and integrating telehealth in rural communities in North Central Washington. Methods We used group concept mapping, a participant-engaged, mixed method approach, to explore participant perspectives and preferences. Purposively sampled participants were community leaders and stakeholders in rural North Central Washington. Participants brainstormed strategies for implementing and expanding community telehealth access in their community and sorted them into conceptually similar groups. Strategies were then rated by participants in terms of potential impact, feasibility, and the cost of implementation. Quantitative analyses included multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to produce a cluster map and pattern match graph for interpreting the community members’ ideas and preferences. Results Participant brainstorming yielded 70 strategies for implementing telehealth in rural North Central Washington. Strategies were individually sorted into groups (point map stress value 0.21), producing a 6-cluster solution. The clusters were “Community infrastructure,” “Ensuring access to telehealth technology,” “Technology infrastructure for telehealth,” “Training/awareness of telehealth,” “State- and policy-level considerations,” and “Health care systems engagement and delivery.” Participants rated “Training/awareness of telehealth” and “Health care systems engagement and delivery” to be highly impactful and feasible approaches. The “Training/awareness of telehealth” cluster included strategies such as educating community members that telehealth is an easy, reliable, convenient, and private way to access health care and providing community training on how to access health care remotely. The latter cluster, “Health care systems engagement and delivery,” included approaches that were ranked as highly feasible and impactful, such as engaging with clinics and providers on overcoming barriers to implementing telehealth services or ensuring that local health clinic staff is on board with telehealth as an alternative platform to provide services. Conclusions Strategies identified and rated by participants incorporate the importance of community engagement in telehealth implementation, including educating community members about telehealth and engaging with community health clinics to facilitate use by providers. Community partners in North Central Washington will use these findings, along with additional community survey data, broadband speed test data, and provider input, to increase access to telehealth in their rural and remote communities. Conflicts of Interest None declared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207