MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387322566 · doi:10.1177/20552076231203803

Trends in telehealth use among a cohort of rural patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

2023· article· en· W4387322566 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristin Pullyblank, Nicole Krupa, Melissa Scribani, Amanda Chapman, Megan Kern, Wendy Brunner

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health Care Management Foundation
KeywordsTelehealthPandemicRuralityTelemedicineContext (archaeology)MedicineHealth careCohortQuarter (Canadian coin)Patient portalFamily medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PopulationRural areaMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthGeographyEconomic growthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Rural populations faced unique challenges to healthcare access during the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis assesses trends in digital health technology use at the onset of the pandemic and describes digital health behaviors among a cohort of patients within a rural integrated healthcare network throughout the first 3 years of the pandemic. Methods: We used data from both the electronic health record (EHR) and a patient survey. EHR data was used to longitudinally assess change over time in patient portal use and telehealth visits. Survey responses were used to provide additional context. Results: Telehealth appointments peaked in the first quarter of 2020 at 28% of all office visits, before leveling off to 8-10% in 2022. Women and those younger than 65 were more likely to have participated in telehealth appointments. Active patient portal users increased from 34.1% in January 2019 to 63.7% in January 2022. There were no differences noted in portal use trends based on rurality. Conclusions: Our findings corroborate previous research, as well as add context regarding digital health technology use throughout the COVID pandemic in a rural patient population. Future research must focus on understanding constraints to digital health expansion in order to continue providing safe, equitable care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital HealthSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207