ArticleThe Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association2025
Provider-to-provider telemedicine for sepsis is used less frequently in communities with high social vulnerability.
Article in The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preventing, identifying, and managing sepsis in the community: research and clinical priorities.The Lancet. Primary care · 2025Article
- Provider-to-provider telemedicine for sepsis is used less frequently in communities with high social vulnerability.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSepsis disproportionately affects patients in rural and socially vulnerable communities. A promising strategy to address this disparity is provider-to-provider emergency department (ED)-based telehealth consultation (tele-ED). The objective of this study was to determine if county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) was associated with tele-ED use for sepsis and, if so, which SVI elements were most strongly associated.
methodsWe used data from the TELEmedicine as a Virtual Intervention for Sepsis in Rural Emergency Department study. The primary exposures were SVI aggregate and component scores. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to model the association between SVI and tele-ED use.
findingsOur study cohort included 1191 patients treated in 23 Midwestern rural EDs between August 2016 and June 2019, of whom 326 (27.4%) were treated with tele-ED. Providers in counties with a high SVI were less likely to use tele-ED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31‒0.87), an effect principally attributable to the housing type and transportation component of SVI (aOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89). Providers who treated fewer sepsis patients (1‒10 vs. 31+ over study period) and therefore may have been less experienced in sepsis care, were more likely to activate tele-ED (aOR = 3.91, 95% CI 2.08‒7.38).
conclusionsTele-ED use for sepsis was lower in socially vulnerable counties and higher among providers who treated fewer sepsis patients. These findings suggest that while tele-ED increases access to specialized care, it may not completely ameliorate sepsis disparities due to its less frequent use in socially vulnerable communities.
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.