Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40755929›Full record

ReviewmHealth2025

Telehealth for primary healthcare delivery in rural and remote contexts in high-income countries-a scoping review.

Supriya Mathew, Danielle Green, Nicki Newton, Rachel Powell, John Wakerman, Deborah J Russell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in mHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Access to general practice: why policy must be rural-proofed.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Supriya MathewRemote Health Systems and Climate Change Centre, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Australia.
Danielle GreenIndependent Researcher, Darwin, Australia.
Nicki NewtonUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Rachel PowellRemote Health Systems and Climate Change Centre, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Australia.
John WakermanRemote Health Systems and Climate Change Centre, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Australia.
Deborah J RussellRemote Health Systems and Climate Change Centre, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Telehealth is an important tool for improving access to health care in underserved areas. This scoping review explores the evidence for implementing telehealth as a mode for delivering primary health care (PHC) consultations by general practitioners (GPs) to rural and remote patients in high income countries. Methods: Peer reviewed publications were sourced from CINAHL, PubMed, and the Web of Science. The Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews was followed. Data from each paper were coded deductively to five themes: (I) telehealth structures and processes; (II) patient and provider preferences for telehealth; (III) positive and negative outcomes of telehealth; (IV) characteristics of providers, practices and patients affecting telehealth adoption; and (V) barriers and enablers to the use of telehealth. Results: Sixty papers were included. Rural and remote populations accept telehealth because of profound impacts on their otherwise long travel times, high travel costs, logistical difficulties and overcoming the generally lower availability of GPs in these locations. Providing face-to-face GP care to isolated small populations is also resource intensive and limited by GP availability, with provider travel time, travel costs and accommodation costs adding to the overall costs of service provision. The main concerns about telehealth were reduced ability to conduct physical examinations, privacy and data security, heavier clinic workloads and poorer relationships. Telehealth was most acceptable for after-hours and follow-up consultations. Effective telehealth required adequate connectivity and digital infrastructure and training of staff to support the patient and PHC provider, which was especially important if there were cultural differences or communication difficulties. Few studies focussed on the experience of telehealth for First Nations people or use of telehealth for PHC service delivery in remote locations. Conclusions: Telehealth can be used as a supplementary mode for delivering PHC services to improve access and continuity of care in rural and remote locations, especially when there is a pre-existing relationship between the PHC provider and the patient. We recommend identifying contextual indicators and putting in place adequate monitoring and evaluation frameworks if introducing telehealth in rural and remote contexts and in the context of First Nations peoples.

Indexed as

marginalisedprimary health care (PHC)teleconsultationVideo consultation

Identifiers

PMID40755929
PMCPMC12314700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.