MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411203586 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000893

Exploring the sustainability of virtual care interventions: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4411203586 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSustainabilityNursingPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual care has proven instrumental in ensuring the continuity of healthcare services. In the context of virtual care's growing prominence and continued use, understanding how and why virtual care interventions are sustained will help healthcare systems to better prepare for future crises. The objectives of this scoping review were to construct a conceptualization of of virtual care sustainability and to describe factors influencing the sustainability of virtual care, shedding light on the determinants that shape its longevity and continued use. Literature describing the sustainability of virtual care interventions was summarized. Details of the intervention, setting, methodology, description and evidence of sustainability, and synopsis of key findings were documented. The charted data were summarized to gain a descriptive understanding of the data collected and to establish patterns. A conceptualization of virtual care intervention sustainability focused on the concepts of fidelity and adaptability. Sustainability of virtual care interventions were conceptualized as the intervention's ability to continue to be used according to its initial design, the extent to which the intervention continued to achieve its intended outcomes (fidelity), and the ability of the intervention to evolve as the context in which it is used also evolves (adaptability). While there were various definitions of sustainability referenced, no included studies mentioned a definition of sustainability specific to virtual care. Commonalities in definitions included the continued use of virtual care and the continuation of the benefits of virtual care for some period of time. Findings indicate that there is no "one size fits all" approach to achieving sustainability of virtual care interventions, but instead identify factors that may support or hinder sustainability. Important to understanding sustainability of virtual care interventions, is the complexity of the interactions that influence it. Specifically, the factors of fidelity and adaptability are found to be important to understanding the sustainability of virtual care interventions.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.221 · 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