ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2026
Research Partnerships in Rural and Remote Virtual Health Innovation Projects: A Scoping Review.
Article in The Australian journal of rural health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPartnerships with research users (e.g., communities, clinicians) are effective in supporting virtual health innovation (VHI) projects to co-develop, implement and evaluate sustainable, relevant innovations that improve care access in rural communities. However, building trusting relationships with underrepresented groups is challenging and time-intensive.
objectiveTo synthesise partnership processes (principles, strategies) and effects (outcomes/impacts) from rural VHI projects.
designA scoping review of peer-reviewed articles on rural VHI partnership projects (2020-2024) identified through five databases. Partnership principles (norms/beliefs), strategies (observable actions) and outcomes/impacts (short- to long-term effects) were extracted and analysed using directed content analysis. Reporting followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist.
findingsOf 7413 abstracts, 85 articles met inclusion criteria. VHI partnership projects were conducted in 15 countries, covering telehealth, digital education and health apps. Nearly half (45.9%) involved partnerships with Indigenous communities. We identified 149 principles and 80 strategies. Principles commonly related to relationship building (55.3%), shared decision-making (51.8%) and knowledge co-production (49.4%). From nine evaluation studies, 36 outcomes/impacts were extracted, of which 81% were positive. DISCUSSION: While a range of partnership processes and effects were identified, reporting was inconsistent, and few studies incorporated formal evaluations. Future research should adopt systematic approaches to report and evaluate their partnership engagement, thereby expanding the evidence base and facilitating shared learning for more effective and meaningful engagement with rural communities.
conclusionThis systematic overview of partnership processes and effects lays the groundwork for more effective, culturally safe engagement. Strengthening partnerships in these contexts can improve healthcare access and reduce rural health disparities.
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.