The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Telehealth services in rural and remote Australia: a systematic review of models of care and factors influencing success and sustainability
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: With the escalating costs of health care, issues with recruitment and retention of health practitioners in rural areas, and poor economies of scale, the question of delivering people to services or services to people is a dilemma for health authorities around the world. People living in rural areas have poorer health outcomes compared to their urban counterparts, and the problem of how to provide health care and deliver services in rural locations is an ongoing challenge. Telehealth services can efficiently and effectively improve access to healthcare for people living in rural and remote areas of Australia. However, telehealth services are not mainstream or routinely available in many rural and remote locations. The barriers to integration of telehealth into mainstream practice have been well described, but not the factors that may influence the success and sustainability of a service. Our aim was to collate, review and synthesise the available literature regarding telehealth services in rural and remote locations of Australia, and to identify the factors associated with their sustained success. METHODS: A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed and grey literature was undertaken. Electronic databases were searched for potentially relevant articles. Reference lists of retrieved articles and the grey literature were also searched. Searches identified 970 potentially eligible articles published between 1988 and 2015. Studies and manuscripts of any type were included if they described telehealth services (store-and-forward or real-time videoconferencing) to provide clinical service or education and training related to health care in rural or remote locations of Australia. Data were extracted according to pre-defined criteria and checked for completeness and accuracy by a second reviewer. Any disagreements were resolved with discussion with a third researcher. All articles were appraised for quality and levels of evidence. Data were collated and grouped into categories including clinical speciality, disciplines involved, geographical location and the role of the service. Data relating to the success or sustainability of services were grouped thematically. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 116 articles that described 72 discrete telehealth services. Telehealth services in rural and remote Australia are described and we have identified six key factors associated with the success and sustainability of services: vision, ownership, adaptability, economics, efficiency and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth has the potential to address many of the key challenges to providing health in Australia, with its substantial land area and widely dispersed population. This review collates information regarding the telehealth services in Australia and describes models of care and characteristics of successful and sustainable services. We identified a wide variety of telehealth services being provided in rural and remote areas of Australia. There is great potential to increase this number by scaling up and replicating successful services. This review provides information for policy makers, governments and public and private health services that wish to integrate telehealth into routine practice and for telehealth providers to enhance the sustainability of their service.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Studies in Health Technology and Informatics
Aphinyanaphongs, Y., & Aliferis, C. (2007) · Cited by 1,247
Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care
Mant, J. (2001) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/13.6.475 · Cited by 607
Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management – an evidence synthesis
Wootton, R. (2012) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/jtt.2012.120219 · Cited by 545
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Rosenheim, M. L. (1958) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1958.tb86419.x · Cited by 437
The reported benefits of telehealth for rural Australians
Moffatt, J. J., & Eley, D. S. (2010) · Australian Health Review · doi:10.1071/ah09794 · Cited by 349
Adoption of telemedicine: from pilot stage to routine delivery
Zanaboni, P., & Wootton, R. (2012) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-1 · Cited by 317
Adler-Milstein, J., Kvedar, J., & Bates, D. W. (2014) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1054 · Cited by 253
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
(2024) · International Journal of Gynecological Cancer · doi:10.1111/(issn)1525-1438 · Cited by 219
The organising vision for telehealth and telecare: discourse analysis
Greenhalgh, T., Procter, R., Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., & Shaw, S. (2012) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001574 · Cited by 199
Cited by
The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: a systematic review based on current evidence
Monaghesh, E., & Hajizadeh, A. (2020) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09301-4 · Cited by 1,941
Telehealth for global emergencies: Implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Smith, A. C., Thomas, E., Snoswell, C. L., Haydon, H., Mehrotra, A., Clemensen, J., & Caffery, L. J. (2020) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x20916567 · Cited by 1,828
Self-citationAlmathami, H. K. Y., Win, K. T., & Vlahu-Gjorgievska, E. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/16407 · Cited by 791
“Also, other systematic literature reviews investigated factors that influence the implementation, adaptably, sustainability, and acceptance of telemedicine services among health care professionals and health care providers [8-12].”
BackgroundFisk, M., Livingstone, A., & Pit, S. W. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/19264 · Cited by 486
Eze, N. D., Mateus, C., & Cravo Oliveira Hashiguchi, T. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237585 · Cited by 345
Metadata
- Authors
- Bradford, N., Caffery, L., & Smith, A.
- Venue
- Rural and Remote Health
- Publisher
- Rural and Remote Health
- Published
- 2016-10-17
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 3808-3808
- ISSN
- 1445-6354 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2538818840
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 95
- FWCI
- 2.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Telehealth services in rural and remote Australia: a systematic review of models of care and factors influencing success and sustainability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.22605/rrh3808
- The paper
- Bradford, N., Caffery, L., & Smith, A. (2016). Telehealth services in rural and remote Australia: a systematic review of models of care and factors influencing success and sustainability. Rural and Remote Health. https://doi.org/10.22605/rrh3808
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.