Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41202276›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Rural Perspectives on Digital Health in Cardiovascular Care: Qualitative Study of Interviews With Rural and Rural-Serving Primary Care Providers and Cardiologists.

Signe Burchim, Susan Miller, Kristin Beima-Sofie, Angela G Spencer, Brekken Selah, Elena Wadden, Adiya Jaffari, Monica Zigman Suchsland, Allison Cole, Steven Elrod and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The digital divide in cardiovascular care: who gets left behind?European heart journal. Digital health · 2026
    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

16 authors.

Signe BurchimDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4803-0847
Susan MillerDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6167-8701
Kristin Beima-SofieDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3408-7410
Angela G SpencerDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3818-3899
Brekken SelahDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4150-1476
Elena WaddenDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6316-071X
Adiya JaffariDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1409-3523
Monica Zigman SuchslandDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7007-6973
Allison ColeDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4393-464X
Steven ElrodProvidence Chehalis Family Medicine, Chehalis, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8595-9226
Margaret A GehringSt. Mary's Health, Cottonwood, ID, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5649-8192
Ryan GillesKootenai Clinic Coeur d'Alene Family Medicine Residency, Coeur d'Alene, ID, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8968-4389
Charles G JosePeaceHealth, Ketchikan, AK, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1568-5433
Kelly McGrathSt. Mary's Health, Cottonwood, ID, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0407-8617
Russell T BakerSchool of Health and Medical Professions, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3352-9632
Chris T LongeneckerDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9468-0179

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health technologies, such as telehealth, remote patient monitoring, and smartphone apps, have the potential to reduce access disparities faced by rural patients with cardiovascular disease, but little is known about rural health care providers' perspectives on adopting digital health in their practice.

objectiveThis study used diffusion of innovations theory as a guiding framework to interpret interview findings on rural and rural-serving health care providers' perspectives on the use of digital health to deliver rural cardiovascular care.

methodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with rural and rural-serving health care providers, including primary care advanced practice providers and physicians, as well as referring cardiologists from 6 primary care clinics in Alaska, Idaho, and Washington. We performed a directed content analysis of interview data informed by diffusion of innovations theory and identified emergent subthemes related to each of the 5 factors that influence adoption: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability.

resultsSeventeen health care providers participated in this study. Participants described cycles of adopting and discontinuing the use of digital health in their practice. Participants identified advantages of digital health including reduced patient travel, the ability to leverage nonphysician health care workers, and the availability of objective patient data from remote patient monitoring. Compatibilities included increased patient adherence and follow-up and the ability to involve specialists in patient care. The trialability of digital health was described through experiences with remote patient monitoring and scaled-up use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, and participants observed the benefits of digital health in other disciplines and as patients. We also identified several disadvantages, incompatibilities, and complexities that may hinder the adoption of digital health technologies in rural practice, most of which were highlighted at the clinic and patient levels. These disadvantages, incompatibilities, and complexities included substandard equipment, inability to perform a physical examination, connectivity issues caused by poor internet and cell phone service, concerns about patient age and technical abilities, concerns about proper fit and distribution of remote patient monitoring equipment, and questions about billing and data management for digital health technologies.

conclusionsRural health care providers recognize the many advantages of using digital health in caring for patients with cardiovascular disease but find that digital health is often complex and incompatible with their needs and the needs of their patients. There may be a disconnect between the potential of digital health and how it works in practice, as evidenced by the cycles of adoption and discontinuance of digital health technologies described by rural health care providers. Future rural digital health interventions in cardiovascular care should take into consideration specific complexities and incompatibilities in the rural context.

Indexed as

CardiologistsCardiovascular DiseasesHealth PersonnelPrimary Health CareRural Health ServicesTelemedicineAlaskaAttitude of Health PersonnelCOVID-19Digital HealthFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchRural PopulationcardiovascularCVDdigital healthheart diseasemHealthremote patient monitoringruraltelehealth

Identifiers

PMID41202276
PMCPMC12639339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.