Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41302689›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025

Digital Health Innovation by Design: A Logic Model Scaffold for Rural, Regional, and Remote Settings.

Michelle A Krahe, Nico Adams, Sarah L Larkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Michelle A KraheCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Douglas 4811, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3223-7825
Nico AdamsNorthern Australian Regional Digital Health Collaborative, Douglas 4811, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3136-1338
Sarah L LarkinsCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Douglas 4811, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7561-3202

Funding

Department of Education, Australia NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital health innovations (DHIs) have the potential to transform access, continuity, and quality of healthcare in rural, regional, and remote (RRR) settings, yet they often fall short in practice. Barriers extend beyond infrastructure and technology to include workforce challenges and the complex realities of delivering care across diverse geographic, cultural, and social contexts. Effective DHIs must therefore be designed with local needs and systemic constraints in mind. Conventional logic models can align inputs and activities with intended outcomes, but their linear and static assumptions often fail to capture the adaptive, relational, and place-based nature of RRR health systems. This paper presents a logic model scaffold-an iterative, four-step process for planning, implementing, and evaluating DHIs in RRR settings. Informed by program theory and implementation science, the scaffold is illustrated through a case example from the Northern Australian Regional Digital Health Collaborative. The process involves understanding context and needs, aligning interventions with system enablers, translating these into targeted activities and outputs, and embedding reflexivity and iterative adaptation. Applying the scaffold from the earliest stages of planning enhances methodological rigor, transparency, and responsiveness to local priorities, workforce realities, and system-level enablers in RRR healthcare.

Indexed as

Rural Health ServicesTelemedicineAustraliaDigital HealthHumansLogicModels, TheoreticalRural Populationdigital health innovationhealth systems designimplementation sciencelogic modelrural and remote health

Identifiers

PMID41302689
PMCPMC12652592

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.