Provider Adoption of mHealth in Rural Patient Care: Web-Based Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians and patient-facing caregivers have increasingly used mobile health (mHealth) technologies in the past several years, accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, barriers and feedback surrounding adoption remain relatively understudied and varied across health systems, particularly in rural areas. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify provider adoption, attitudes, and barriers toward mHealth in a large, multisite, rural US health care system. We investigated (1) mHealth apps that providers use for their own benefit and (2) mHealth apps that a provider uses in conjunction with a patient. METHODS: We surveyed all patient-seeing providers within the Marshfield Clinic Health System with a brief, 16-item, web-based survey assessing attitudes toward mHealth, adoption of these technologies, and perceived barriers faced by providers, their peers, and the institution. Survey results were summarized via descriptive statistics, with log-binomial regression and accompanying pairwise analyses, using Kruskal-Wallis and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests for significance, respectively. Respondents were grouped by reported clinical role and specialty. RESULTS: We received a 38% (n/N=916/2410) response rate, with 60.7% (n=556) of those sufficiently complete for analyses. Roughly 54.1% (n=301) of respondents reported mHealth use, primarily around decision-making and supplemental information, with use differing based on provider role and years of experience. Self-reported barriers to using mHealth included a lack of knowledge and time to study mHealth technologies. Providers also reported concerns about patients' internet access and the complexity of mHealth apps to adequately use mHealth technologies. Providers believed the health system's barriers were largely privacy, confidentiality, and legal review concerns. CONCLUSIONS: These findings echo similar studies in other health systems, surrounding providers' lack of time and concerns over privacy and confidentiality of patient data. Providers emphasized concerns over the complexity of these technologies for their patients and concerns over patients' internet access to fully use mHealth in their delivery of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".