Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41938656›Full record

ArticleInnovation in aging2026

What constitutes good care in the context of depopulating rural Korea? Perspectives of village care managers amid digital transitions.

Jane Park, Soong-Nang Jang, Jongnam Hwang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Innovation in aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Jane ParkASEM Global Ageing Center, Seoul, Korea.
Soong-Nang JangRed Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2621-945X
Jongnam HwangDepartment of Health Administration, Wonkwang University, Iksan, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Korea is undergoing one of the fastest demographic transitions among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, with rural communities experiencing the sharpest consequences of aging and depopulation. In these areas, older adults face multiple disadvantages, including social isolation, limited income and education, and restricted access to health and welfare services. In response, national policies have promoted smart care technologies-sensors, monitoring devices, and AI-based services-as part of community-based integrated care. Although these technologies are expected to reduce service gaps, less attention has been paid to how frontline providers understand what constitutes "good care" in this context. Research Design and Methods: Our study examined the perspectives of village care managers, who coordinate health, welfare, and smart care resources in rural communities. Sixteen managers involved in a pilot smart integrated care project in Jeongeup, Jeonbuk-do, were interviewed through semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Results: Our findings suggest that good care cannot be solely achieved through technological monitoring or efficiency. It still requires relational qualities-sincerity, respect, and social connection-combined with professional competence and coordination across fragmented services. Participants highlighted that smart technologies may support safety and access but cannot substitute for human interaction, local collaboration, and skilled guidance in bridging digital divides. Discussion and Implications: By foregrounding providers' perspectives, this study adds to ongoing debates about the meaning of good care in digitally integrated rural care settings. Smart technologies can support safety and access, but their value depends on how they are embedded in practices of empathy, respect, professional guidance, and community collaboration.

Indexed as

Digital care qualityDigital technologyIntegrated careRural healthSmart care

Identifiers

PMID41938656
PMCPMC13049593

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.