MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115920833 · doi:10.2196/78030

Resource Use Patterns in US Telehealth Services: Machine Learning and Clustering Analysis Across 4 Specialties

2025· article· en· W7115920833 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthCluster analysisResource (disambiguation)Health careTelemedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The expansion of telehealth services, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed health care delivery in the United States. Telehealth promises greater access and resource efficiency by reducing wait times and appointment lengths, especially in specialties like psychiatry, behavioral health, bariatrics, and sleep medicine. However, disparities exist in adoption based on demographics, geography, and socioeconomic status, raising concerns about equitable access and optimal resource use. Objective This study aims to evaluate how telehealth impacts health care resource use across 4 specialties by examining 2 key metrics: patient-to-provider ratios and appointment durations. It seeks to understand how factors such as patient demographics, facility characteristics, and social determinants influence telehealth adoption and efficiency using a national dataset spanning from 2018 to 2023. Methods We analyzed a deidentified dataset from Epic Cosmos, covering outpatient visits across 48 US states (2018-2023). After data preprocessing and feature engineering, we applied 3 machine learning (ML) models (random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and deep neural networks) to predict resource use. Using the model performing the best, feature importance was assessed using Shapley Additive Explanations values. We then used k-means clustering to group facilities into clusters per specialty. Comparative analyses were conducted to evaluate differences in use among clusters, during and after the pandemic. Results Telehealth use peaked in 2020 and has remained above prepandemic levels since then. In 2018-2023, telehealth adoption reached 36.9% (4,543,021/12,311,710) in psychiatry, 23.9% (5,321,099/22,264,013) in behavioral health, 21.2% (924,333/4,360,061) in bariatrics, and 16.8% (851,803/5,070,256) in sleep medicine. Telehealth visits were consistently shorter than office visits (mean reduction 12.24 minutes; SD 3.33 minutes; P=.18), while patient-to-provider ratios varied significantly across specialties. Among ML models, extreme gradient boosting regression achieved the best performance (patient-to-provider ratios: R2=0.96-0.99; appointment durations: R2=0.61-0.69). Shapley Additive Explanations analysis identified visit type, telehealth use, facility size, rurality, and Social Vulnerability Index household vulnerability as the strongest predictors. Comparative analyses showed significant differences across clusters (all P<.05). Conclusions Telehealth has become a sustainable component of health care, enhancing access and efficiency across both rural and urban areas. However, its impact varies across specialties and regions, highlighting the need for targeted strategies such as staffing support for vulnerable populations, infrastructure investments in rural facilities, and reimbursement models that reflect telehealth’s resource use. This study provides robust evidence from ML and clustering analyses, demonstrating how telehealth shapes resource use and offering actionable insights for equitable and sustainable integration.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207