ArticleBMJ open2020
Attitudes of rural communities towards the use of technology for health purposes in New Zealand: a focus group study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Perspectives on AI-Powered Medical Robots in Breast and Prostate Cancer Care: Qualitative Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Scoping review of telehealth use by Indigenous populations from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Article
- The digital divide in rural and regional communities: a survey on the use of digital health technology and implications for supporting technology use.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- An Integrative Review of Contemporary Perspectives on Videoconference-Based Therapy-Prioritising Indigenous and Ethnic Minority Populations in the Global South.Journal of technology in behavioral science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesExamine attitudes to using online health and wellness services, and determine what barriers may exist to this in two rural communities in New Zealand.
designA thematic analysis informed by a social constructivist paradigm explored the attitudes of youth and adults to give voice to these communities. Eighteen focus groups-nine in each region-were held for an hour each, with between three and nine participants in each group.
settingTwo rural areas at the Northern and Southern ends of New Zealand were chosen. In each area, we partnered with a local health centre providing primary care services. Three localities were identified within each region where we conducted the data collection.
participantsParticipants were youth aged 12-15 years, aged 16-20 years and adults over 21 years. Overall, 74 females and 40 males were recruited. Recruitment occurred through schools, community organisations or personal contacts of the facilitators, who were youth workers in their respective communities. Ethnicity of the participants was representative of each area, with a higher percentage of Māori participants in Northland.
resultsEight themes were identified which described participants' attitudes to technology use in healthcare. Themes covered accessibility, cost, independence, anonymity and awareness issues: technology makes health information easily accessible; access to technology can be limited in rural communities; technology can reduce the cost of healthcare but it is too expensive for some; technology increases independence and autonomy of people's own health; independent healthcare decisions come with risks; anonymity encourages people to seek help online; technology can help raise awareness and provide peer-support for people with health issues; technology impacts on social relationships.
conclusionsParticipants-particularly youth-were generally positive about the role of technology in healthcare delivery, and interested in ways technology could improve autonomy and access to health and wellness services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.