MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411280801 · doi:10.63144/ijt.2025.6652

Factors Influencing Telehealth Use in School-based Health Services: Secondary Analysis from a Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4411280801 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Knobl, Kari Renahan, Annie Jiang, Michelle Phoenix, Briano Di Rezze, Wenonah Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Telerehabilitation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthComputer scienceData scienceMultimediaWorld Wide WebTelemedicineHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Although telehealth use in schools can address gaps in service access, implementation in the school setting lags. This study describes factors that influence implementation of telehealth in school health services. Methods: . Using scoping review methods, articles were sought in five academic databases pertaining to regulated health providers' use of telehealth in kindergarten to grade 12 schools. Two reviewers completed source selection and data extraction. Data were charted to the diffusion of innovations theory and content analysis performed. Results: Of 6585 unique sources considered, 70 articles were included. Multiple factors were described influencing telehealth implementation in schools. The most salient factors reported for successful implementation included provider training, access to reliable technology, availability of an e-helper, and policies to support ethical telehealth delivery. Conclusion: Telehealth use in schools is increasing; however, successful implementation requires planning that considers how and why such innovations are adopted.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0290.031
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of TelerehabilitationSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207