The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the WISE (Women in the South-East) Telehealth Network.
Design
A follow-up survey design was used to determine the impact of the program on access to healthcare.
Setting
WISE provided preventive care to women and gender expansive people at local libraries and the Mobile Library in the rural South Carolina Lowcountry.
Subjects
In 1 year (February 2021-2022), WISE reached 523 individuals with 151 agreeing to participate in the study. Most participants identified as white (66%) or Black (22%).
Intervention
A Community Health Worker provided health education, connection to telehealth services, referrals, and connected individuals with community and social services.
Measures
The Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ), changes in knowledge, satisfaction with WISE, Acceptability of Intervention measure (AIM), and sociodemographic characteristics.
Results
Participants with a high telehealth usability score were significantly more likely to be under the age of 35 (OR 4.60 [95% CI 1.21-17.52]), married (OR 10.00 [95% CI 2.19-45.64]), or white (OR 4.00 [95% CI 1.06-15.08]). The intervention earned a high acceptability score 4.46 (± .61)/5.0 by helping participants obtain necessary medical care and resources, as well as meeting their educational needs.
Conclusion
This study offers practical suggestions to expand the use of telehealth initiatives to improve health outcomes by engaging libraries in rural communities.
NguyenTCDonovanEEWrightML. Doula support challenges and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for maternal health inequities. Health Commun. 2022;37(12):1496-1502. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2021.2012898.
2.
WittWPHarlaarNPalmerA. The impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women and children: recommendations for health promotion. Am J Health Promot. 2023;37(2):282-288. DOI: 10.1177/08901171221140641e.
3.
LindbergLDVandeVusseAMuellerJKirsteinM. Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the 2020 guttmacher survey of reproductive health experiences. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2020. DOI: 10.1363/2020.31482.
Laster PirtleWNWrightT. Structural gendered racism revealed in pandemic times: intersectional approaches to understanding race and gender health inequities in COVID-19. Gend Soc. 2021;35(2):168-179. DOI: 10.1177/08912432211001302.
6.
VarkeyPKureshiSKureshiSLesnickT. Empowerment of women and its association with the health of the community. J Womens Health. 2010;19(1):71-76. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1444.
7.
OrtegaGRodriguezJAMaurerLR, et al.Telemedicine, COVID-19, and disparities: policy implications. Health Policy Technol. 2020;9(3):368-371. DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.001.
8.
ZhangPTaoGAndersonLA. Differences in access to health care services among adults in rural America by rural classification categories and age. Aust J Rural Health. 2003;11(2):64-72. DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1584.2003.00454.x.
9.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Health disparities in rural women. Committee opinion No. 586. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;123:384-388.
10.
ColeESLeightonCZhangY. Distribution of visits for chronic conditions between primary care and specialist providers in medicare shared savings accountable care organizations. Med Care. 2018;56(5):424-429. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000903.
11.
OrimayeSOHaleNLeinaarESmithMGKhouryA. Adolescent birth rates and rural–urban differences by levels of deprivation and health professional shortage areas in the United States, 2017–2018. Am J Public Health. 2021;111(1):136-144. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305957.
HungPHenning-SmithC.E.CaseyM.M.KozhimannilK.B.. Access to obstetric services in rural counties still declining, with 9 percent losing services, 2004-14. Health Affairs2017;36(9):1663-1671.
16.
RoaLUribe-LeitzTFallahPN, et al.Travel time to access obstetric and neonatal care in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(3):610-612. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004053.
JacksonDNTrivediNBaurC. Re-prioritizing digital health and health literacy in healthy people 2030 to affect health equity. Health Commun. 2021;36(10):1155-1162. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1748828.
20.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Implementing telehealth in practice. ACOG committee No. 798. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(2):e73-e79.
LeightonCConroyMBilderbackAKalocayWHendersonJKSimhanHN. Implementation and impact of a maternal–fetal medicine telemedicine program. Am J Perinatol. 2019;36(07):751-758. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675158.
23.
RhoadsSJSerranoCILynchCE, et al.Exploring implementation of m-health monitoring in postpartum women with hypertension. Telemed J e Health. 2017;23(10):833-841. DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2016.0272.
24.
RobinsonJDTurnerJWWoodKS. Patient perceptions of acute care telemedicine: a pilot investigation. Health Commun. 2015;30(12):1269-1276. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2014.936335.
25.
DorseyEROkunMSBloemBR. Care, convenience, comfort, confidentiality, and contagion: the 5 C’s that will shape the future of telemedicine. J Parkinsons Dis. 2020;10(3):893-897. DOI: 10.3233/JPD-202109.
26.
SwintonJJRobinsonWDBischoffRJ. Telehealth and rural depression: physician and patient perspectives. Fam Syst Health. 2009;27(2):172-182. DOI: 10.1037/a0016014.
27.
AzizAZorkNAubeyJJ, et al.Telehealth for high-risk pregnancies in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Perinatol. 2020;37(8):800-808. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712121.
28.
ReedK. Telemedicine: benefits to advanced practice nursing and the communities they serve. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2005;17(5):176-180. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2005.0029.x.
29.
DeGuzmanPBSiegfriedZLeimkuhlerME. Evaluation of rural public libraries to address telemedicine inequities. Public Health Nurs. 2020;37(5):806-811. DOI: 10.1111/phn.12777.
30.
PhilbinMMParkerCMFlahertyMGHirschJS. Public libraries: a community-level resource to advance population health. J Community Health. 2019;44(1):192-199. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-018-0547-4.
BryneAVisserM. Keeping communities connected: library broadband services during the COVID-19 pandemic. ALA Policy Perspectives. 2022;9:1-16.
33.
FlahertyM.The Public Library as Health Information Resource? School of Information Studies. Dissertations. 82. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. https://surface.syr.edu/it_etd/82 (2013).
34.
FlahertyMGMillerD. Rural public libraries as community change agents: opportunities for health promotion. J Educ Libr Inf Sci. 2016;57(2):143-150. DOI: 10.12783/issn.2328-2967/57/2/6.
35.
JohnsonCEJohnsonTClarkHSchirwianKThomasO. A library-site asthma education program for inner-city communities. J Asthma. 2006;43(1):9-18. DOI: 10.1080/02770900500446831.
36.
MalachowskiM. Public libraries participating in community health initiatives. J Hosp Librarian. 2014;14(3):295-302. DOI: 10.1080/15323269.2014.924754.
37.
PortsKAAyersACrockerWHartAMosavelMRafieC. Community perceptions and utilization of a consumer health center. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015;103(1):35-39. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.007.
38.
DelairSLydenEO’KeefeA, et al.A novel public library-based sexually transmitted infection screening program for younger high-risk groups in Omaha, Nebraska, USA. J Community Health. 2016;41(2):289-295. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-015-0095-0.
39.
LowensteinMFeuerstein-SimonRDupuisR, et al.Overdose awareness and reversal trainings at Philadelphia public libraries. Am J Health Promot. 2021;35(2):250-254. DOI: 10.1177/0890117120937909.
40.
RapkinBDWeissELounsburyD, et al.Reducing disparities in cancer screening and prevention through community-based participatory research partnerships with local libraries: a comprehensive dynamic trial. Am J Community Psychol. 2017;60(1/2):145-159. DOI: 10.1002/ajcp.12161.
41.
RealBBogelG. Public libraries and the opioid crisis, Part 2: community-centered responses. Publ Libr Q. 2019;38(3):270-289. DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2019.1635326.
42.
MorganAUDupuisRD’AlonzoB, et al.Beyond books: public libraries as partners for population health. Health Aff. 2016;35(11):2030-2036. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0724.
43.
ThompsonT-AAhrensKACoplonL. Virtually possible: using telehealth to bring reproductive health care to women with opioid use disorder in rural Maine. mHealth. 2020;6:41. DOI: 10.21037/mhealth-19-237.
44.
SwanDWGrimesJOwensT. The State of Small and Rural Libraries in the United States. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Research Brief No. 5; 2013:1-13.
45.
DonnellyF. Regional variations in average distance to public libraries in the United States. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2015;37(4):280-289.
46.
SoniHIvanovaJWilczewskiH, et al.Virtual conversational agents versus online forms: patient experience and preferences for health data collection. Front Digit Health. 2022;4:954069. DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.954069.
47.
ParmantoBLewisANGrahamKMBertoletMH. Development of the telehealth usability questionnaire (TUQ). Int J Telerehabil. 2016;8(1):3-10. DOI: 10.5195/ijt.2016.6196.
48.
Clegg and Associates. Tools for outcome based evaluation of HOPWA funded programs. Washington, DC: AIDS Housing of Washington; 2003.
WeinerBJLewisCCStanickC, et al.Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3.
51.
SundstromBDeMariaALFerraraMMeierSBillingsD. “The closer, the better:” the role of telehealth in increasing contraceptive access among women in rural South Carolina. Matern Child Health J. 2019;23(9):1196-1205. DOI: 10.1007/s10995-019-02750-3.
52.
SundstromBDeMariaALFerraraMSmithEMcInnisS. “People are struggling in this area:” a qualitative study of women’s perspectives of telehealth in rural South Carolina. Women Health. 2020;60(3):352-365. DOI: 10.1080/03630242.2019.1643814.
53.
XuJHamadiHHicks-RoofKZeglinRBaileyCZhaoM. Healthcare professionals and telehealth usability during COVID-19. Telehealth and Medicine Today. 2021;6(3). DOI: 10.30953/tmt.v6.270.
54.
DePuccioMJGaughanAAShiu-YeeKMcAlearneyAS. Doctoring from home: physicians’ perspectives on the advantages of remote care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2022;17(6):e0269264. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269264.
55.
KoJSEl-ToukhySQuinteroSM, et al.Disparities in telehealth access, not willingness to use services, likely explain rural telehealth disparities. J Rural Health. 2023;39(n/a):617-624. DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12759.
56.
DeGuzmanPBJainNLoureiroCG. Public libraries as partners in telemedicine delivery: a Review and research agenda. Publ Libr Q. 2022b;41(3):294-304. DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2021.1877080.
57.
Magsamen-ConradKWangFTettehDLeeY-I. Using technology adoption theory and a lifespan approach to develop a theoretical framework for eHealth literacy: extending UTAUT. Health Commun. 2020;35(12):1435-1446. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1641395.
58.
BeattyKESmithMGKhouryAJZhengSVenturaLMOkworiG. Accessibility of federally funded family planning services in South Carolina and Alabama. Prev Med Rep. 2021;22:101343. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101343.
59.
DeGuzmanPBAbooaliSJainNScicchitanoASiegfriedZC. Improving equitable access to care via telemedicine in rural public libraries. Public Health Nurs. 2022a;39(2):431-437. DOI: 10.1111/phn.12981.
60.
CantorAGNelsonHDPappasM, et al.Telehealth for women’s preventive services for reproductive health and intimate partner violence: a comparative effectiveness Review. J Gen Intern Med. 2023;38:1735-1743. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-023-08033-6.
61.
PowellTWSmithBDOffiongA, et al.Public librarians: partners in adolescent health promotion. Publ Libr Q. 2022;42(0):361-372. DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2022.2107349.
62.
AdleMBehreJRealBJeanBS. Moving toward health justice in the COVID-19 Era: a sampling of US public libraries’ efforts to inform the public, improve information literacy, enable health behaviors, and optimize health outcomes. Libr Q. 2023;93(1):26-47. DOI: 10.1086/722553.
63.
KriegerNLeBlancMWatermanPDReisnerSLTestaCChenJT. Decreasing survey response rates in the time of COVID-19: implications for analyses of population health and health inequities. Am J Public Health. 2023;113(6):667-670. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2023.307267.
64.
HendraRHillA. Rethinking response rates: new evidence of little relationship between survey response rates and nonresponse bias. Eval Rev. 2019;43(5):307-330. DOI: 10.1177/0193841X18807719.
65.
FosnachtKSarrafSHoweEPeckLK. How important are high response rates for college surveys?Rev High Educ. 2017;40(2):245-265. DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2017.0003.
