<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.0 20040830//EN" "journalpublishing.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="2.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">JMIR Aging</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">aging</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="index">31</journal-id><journal-title>JMIR Aging</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title>JMIR Aging</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="epub">2561-7605</issn><publisher><publisher-name>JMIR Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Toronto, Canada</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">v9i1e85018</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2196/85018</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Original Paper</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Patient Satisfaction With Telehealth Visits in Rural Compared With Urban Communities: Single-Center Study</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hepburn</surname><given-names>Corrin</given-names></name><degrees>MD</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Krawczyk</surname><given-names>Karolina</given-names></name><degrees>MD</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Joyce</surname><given-names>Cara</given-names></name><degrees>PhD</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rubin</surname><given-names>Jonah</given-names></name><degrees>MD</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><institution>Division of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center</institution><addr-line>1620 W Harrison St</addr-line><addr-line>Chicago</addr-line><addr-line>IL</addr-line><country>United States</country></aff><aff id="aff2"><institution>Division of Gastroenterology, Loyola University Medical Center</institution><addr-line>Maywood</addr-line><addr-line>IL</addr-line><country>United States</country></aff><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="editor"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Jinjiao</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="reviewer"><name name-style="western"><surname>Poddighe</surname><given-names>Dimitri</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="reviewer"><name name-style="western"><surname>Davidson</surname><given-names>Ryan D</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="reviewer"><name name-style="western"><surname>Powell</surname><given-names>Valerie J</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp>Correspondence to Corrin Hepburn, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, 1620 W Harrison St, Chicago, IL, 60612, United States, 1 312 942 5000; <email>corrindhepburn@gmail.com</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2026</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>24</day><month>6</month><year>2026</year></pub-date><volume>9</volume><elocation-id>e85018</elocation-id><history><date date-type="received"><day>29</day><month>09</month><year>2025</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>02</day><month>03</month><year>2026</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>11</day><month>05</month><year>2026</year></date></history><copyright-statement>&#x00A9; Corrin Hepburn, Karolina Krawczyk, Cara Joyce, Jonah Rubin. Originally published in JMIR Aging (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://aging.jmir.org">https://aging.jmir.org</ext-link>), 24.6.2026. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2026</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Aging, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://aging.jmir.org">https://aging.jmir.org</ext-link>, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.</p></license><self-uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://aging.jmir.org/2026/1/e85018"/><abstract><sec><title>Background</title><p>Studies performed in urban communities with access to technology suggest high patient satisfaction with telehealth. While virtual visits can increase the reach of clinical practice in rural communities, technological barriers may reduce patient satisfaction.</p></sec><sec><title>Objective</title><p>This study aimed to compare satisfaction with telehealth visits between patients living in rural and urban communities.</p></sec><sec sec-type="methods"><title>Methods</title><p>A telephone survey was developed and administered to hepatology patients seen at outpatient clinics from March 2020 through March 2021. Patient characteristics and survey responses were compared by urban and rural location as defined by the census tract based on zip code using univariable and multivariable logistic regression.</p></sec><sec sec-type="results"><title>Results</title><p>Of 400 patients, 164 (41%) completed the survey. Compared with urban patients, rural patients had twice the transportation time to clinic (mean 59, SD 35 vs mean 30, SD 15 min) and were more likely to cancel due to transportation issues (21/48, 46% vs 15/116, 13%). Rural patients reported less proficiency with technology and more technical difficulties, including an inability to log on to the portal or access the camera or microphone (35/48, 75% vs 29/116, 25%) and less comfort with their devices (26/48, 54% vs 10/116, 9%). Overall, urban patients were more likely to prefer telehealth (adjusted odds ratio 5.20, 95% CI 2.15&#x2010;13.7) and were more satisfied with telehealth vs in-person visits than rural patients (72/116, 62.1% vs 10/48, 20.8%).</p></sec><sec sec-type="conclusions"><title>Conclusions</title><p>Rural patients reported more technical challenges with telehealth and more transportation issues than urban patients but favored in-person hepatology visits. Urban patients were more satisfied with telehealth visits compared with in-person visits. Research is needed to improve telehealth delivery and satisfaction for rural patients.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>technology literacy</kwd><kwd>hepatology</kwd><kwd>patient experience</kwd><kwd>broadband</kwd><kwd>technological barriers</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1" sec-type="intro"><title>Introduction</title><p>Telehealth provides an alternative to in-person appointments, and the number of these visits soared during the COVID-19 pandemic [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>]. Potential benefits of telehealth include eliminating the need for transportation and reducing the amount of time associated with office visits, which can increase patient convenience and reduce health care costs. Previous research showed high patient satisfaction with telehealth visits, but most of these studies were performed in urban communities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>]. Despite the benefits, patients may experience difficulties with these visits related to internet connectivity and technological demands [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>]. These difficulties are noted to be increased in patients with low technology literacy. Between 55% and 85% of households have broadband internet access, with lower rates in rural communities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>]. Our hepatology practice covers a wide geography with clinics throughout the state of Illinois, including patients in both rural and urban communities. Given the disparity in access to broadband in rural areas, our objective was to examine patient satisfaction with telehealth between rural and urban communities.</p></sec><sec id="s2" sec-type="methods"><title>Methods</title><sec id="s2-1"><title>Ethical Considerations</title><p>This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board at Loyola University Medical Center (IRB#LU 214739; approval date October 21, 2021). All participants were adults and provided verbal informed consent prior to participation in the telephone survey. Participants were informed of the voluntary nature of the study, that refusal to participate would not affect their medical care, and that they could withdraw at any time. No protected health information was collected beyond data necessary for study objectives. Survey responses were deidentified and securely stored to maintain confidentiality, in accordance with institutional and ethical guidelines.</p></sec><sec id="s2-2"><title>Survey Development</title><p>A survey tool was developed to assess patient satisfaction with telehealth visits in addition to technology literacy and broadband internet access (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="app1">Multimedia Appendix 1</xref>). Survey questions were identified from a literature search focusing on 4 main themes: demographic information, geographic information, telehealth literacy, and telehealth satisfaction. Telehealth literacy questions were developed to test similar concepts asked in prior validated questionnaires including the eHealth Literacy Scale [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>] and the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>]. Telehealth satisfaction questions were developed to test similar concepts asked in the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire and asked on a 5-point Likert scale [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>].</p><p>Patients were approached for participation in this study if they had both a telehealth visit and an in-person appointment between March 2020 to March 2021, when our telehealth program was most active. We excluded patients who were liver transplant recipients and those with hepatocellular carcinoma, as their appointment criteria may require more frequent in-person visits with a multidisciplinary care team and therefore may bias the result. Patients were contacted by telephone by an investigator. Informed consent was obtained over the phone via a script. The survey was then read to these patients and responses were recorded in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software. For patients who were non&#x2013;English speaking, a certified interpreter was used over the phone. Information on rural-urban commuting area code was calculated via the most recent US Department of Agriculture data by zip code for the 2010 census [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>]. Demographic information was collected from the electronic medical record including age, gender, race, diagnosis, and zip code. Our primary outcome was patient satisfaction with the visit, measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Secondary outcomes included internet access, difficulties with telehealth use, device used, and preference for type of visit in the future.</p></sec><sec id="s2-3"><title>Statistical Analysis</title><p>Descriptive variables were compared using Student <italic>t</italic> tests (2-tailed) for continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher exact tests for nominal variables by location (urban vs rural as defined by census tract) and visit preference (in person or telehealth). Univariable and multivariable analyses with logistic regression models were used to determine odds ratios (ORs) for patient characteristics associated with telehealth preference. Certain questions in the survey used the Likert scale to assess characteristics associated with satisfaction with telehealth which were analyzed with proportional odds logistic regression models. Analyses were performed using the R programming language (version 4.4.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3" sec-type="results"><title>Results</title><p>Of 400 patients who were contacted, 164 (41%) completed the survey. The mean age was 64 (SD 10) years, more than half were male participants (n=88, 53.7%), and three-quarters were non-Hispanic White (122/163, 74.8%). The most common causes of liver disease were alcohol (51/162, 31.5%), metabolic dysfunction&#x2013;associated steatotic liver disease (49/162, 30.2%), and hepatitis C (36/162, 22.2%; <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="t1" position="float"><label>Table 1.</label><caption><p>Patient demographics.</p></caption><table id="table1" frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Characteristics</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Overall (n=164)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Rural (n=48)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Urban (n=116)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>P</italic> value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Age (y), mean (SD)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table1fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">64 (10)</td><td align="left" valign="top">65 (11)</td><td align="left" valign="top">63 (10)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.35</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Sex, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table1fn3">c</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">.86</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Male</td><td align="left" valign="top">88 (53.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">25 (52.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">63 (54.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Female</td><td align="left" valign="top">76 (46.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">23 (47.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">53 (45.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Race, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table1fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Black</td><td align="left" valign="top">14 (8.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">14 (12.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Hispanic</td><td align="left" valign="top">25 (15.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (2.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">24 (20.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Other</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (1.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (1.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>White</td><td align="left" valign="top">122 (74.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">46 (97.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">76 (65.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Diagnosis, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table1fn2">b</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">.18</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Alcohol-related liver disease</td><td align="left" valign="top">51 (31.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">19 (40.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">32 (27.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Hepatitis C</td><td align="left" valign="top">36 (22.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">12 (25.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">24 (20.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Metabolic dysfunction&#x2013;associated steatotic liver disease</td><td align="left" valign="top">49 (30.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">12 (25.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">37 (32.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Other</td><td align="left" valign="top">26 (16)</td><td align="left" valign="top">4 (8.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">22 (19.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="table1fn1"><p><sup>a</sup>Data were available for 163 participants (overall),</p></fn><fn id="table1fn2"><p><sup>b</sup>Data were available for 162 participants (overall),</p></fn><fn id="table1fn3"><p><sup>c</sup>Data were available for 164 participants (overall)</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>Using univariate analysis, rural patients (n=48) compared with urban patients (n=116) had double the transportation time to the clinic (mean 59, SD 35 vs mean 30, SD 15 min; <italic>P</italic>&#x003C;.001), were less likely to reliably attend appointments (36/48, 75% vs 110/116, 96%; <italic>P</italic>&#x003C;.001), and were more likely to cancel visits due to transportation issues (21/48, 46% vs 15/116, 13%; <italic>P</italic>&#x003C;.001; <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Rural patients also reported more technical difficulties (35/48, 75% vs 29/116, 25%; <italic>P</italic>&#x003C;.001), less comfort with their devices (26/48, 54% vs 10/116, 9%; <italic>P</italic>&#x003C;.001), and less frequent computer use (14/48, 29% vs 78/116, 67%<italic>; P</italic>&#x003C;.001). Despite these differences, similar proportions of rural and urban patients were willing to have telehealth visits in the future (38/48, 79% vs 100/116, 86%; <italic>P</italic>=.26).</p><table-wrap id="t2" position="float"><label>Table 2.</label><caption><p>Patient responses to survey.</p></caption><table id="table2" frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Characteristics</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Overall (n=164)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Rural (n=48)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Urban (n=116)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>P</italic> value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Time to clinic (min), mean (SD)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="char" char="." valign="bottom">39 (27)</td><td align="char" char="." valign="bottom">59 (35)</td><td align="char" char="." valign="bottom">30 (15)</td><td align="char" char="." valign="bottom">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Mode of transportation, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.56</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Drive</td><td align="left" valign="top">161 (98.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">48 (100)</td><td align="left" valign="top">113 (97.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Public transportation</td><td align="left" valign="top">3 (1.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">3 (2.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Transportation, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.64</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Drive yourself</td><td align="left" valign="top">117 (71.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">33 (68.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">84 (72.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Depend on others</td><td align="left" valign="top">47 (28.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">15 (31.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">32 (27.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Able to make appointments reliably, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">146 (89.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">36 (75)</td><td align="left" valign="top">110 (95.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Had to cancel due to transportation issues, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn2">b</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">36 (22.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">21 (45.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">15 (12.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Internet connection, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Dial-up</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (0.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (0.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Broadband</td><td align="left" valign="top">122 (74.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">26 (54.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">96 (82.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Satellite</td><td align="left" valign="top">7 (4.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">4 (8.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">3 (2.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Other</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (0.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (0.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>I do not know</td><td align="left" valign="top">33 (20.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">18 (37.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">15 (12.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Owns a mobile phone, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">162 (98.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">48 (100)</td><td align="left" valign="top">114 (98.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003E;.99</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Device with camera, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn2">b</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">154 (95.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">43 (89.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">111 (97.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Device used for telehealth, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Computer</td><td align="left" valign="top">50 (30.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">25 (52.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">25 (21.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Smartphone</td><td align="left" valign="top">70 (42.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">14 (29.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">56 (48.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Tablet</td><td align="left" valign="top">44 (26.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (18.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">35 (30.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Technical difficulties, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">65 (39.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">36 (75)</td><td align="left" valign="top">29 (25)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">How often uses a computer, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Daily</td><td align="left" valign="top">92 (56.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">14 (29.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">78 (67.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Weekly</td><td align="left" valign="top">54 (32.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">23 (47.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">31 (26.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Monthly</td><td align="left" valign="top">18 (11)</td><td align="left" valign="top">11 (22.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">7 (6)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Comfort with device, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Very uncomfortable</td><td align="left" valign="top">3 (1.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (4.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (0.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Uncomfortable</td><td align="left" valign="top">33 (20.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">24 (50)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (7.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Neutral</td><td align="left" valign="top">25 (15.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">12 (25)</td><td align="left" valign="top">13 (11.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Comfortable</td><td align="left" valign="top">47 (28.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6 (12.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">41 (35.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Very comfortable</td><td align="left" valign="top">56 (34.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">4 (8.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">52 (44.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Aware of myLoyola portal, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn3">c</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">148 (90.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">40 (83.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">108 (93.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Communication with liver physician, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn3">c</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Phone</td><td align="left" valign="top">87 (54)</td><td align="left" valign="top">37 (78.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">50 (43.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Email</td><td align="left" valign="top">49 (30.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">49 (43)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>In person</td><td align="left" valign="top">25 (15.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">10 (21.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">15 (13.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Communication with primary care provider, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Phone</td><td align="left" valign="top">84 (51.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">37 (77.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">47 (40.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Email</td><td align="left" valign="top">53 (32.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">53 (46.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>In person</td><td align="left" valign="top">26 (16)</td><td align="left" valign="top">11 (22.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">15 (13)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Preferences for reminders, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Email</td><td align="left" valign="top">55 (33.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (4.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">53 (45.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Telephone</td><td align="left" valign="top">109 (66.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">46 (95.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">63 (54.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Interested in new resources for telemedicine, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">131 (80.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">37 (77.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">94 (81.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Easy to download app, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">28 (17.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">8 (16.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">20 (17.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">How-to guide for accessing visits, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">86 (52.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">34 (70.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">52 (44.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.002</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">App for symptoms to aid with medications, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">64 (39)</td><td align="left" valign="top">8 (16.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">56 (48.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Email reminders for myLoyola, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">8 (4.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (4.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6 (5.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003E;.99</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Important to have regular visits with liver physician, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">161 (98.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">47 (100)</td><td align="left" valign="top">114 (98.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003E;.99</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Understand more during virtual or in-person visits, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>In person</td><td align="left" valign="top">59 (36)</td><td align="left" valign="top">28 (58.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">31 (26.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Virtual</td><td align="left" valign="top">3 (1.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">3 (2.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Equally between them</td><td align="left" valign="top">102 (62.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">20 (41.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">82 (70.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Satisfaction with visit, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.97</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Very unsatisfied</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Unsatisfied</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (1.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (1.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Neutral</td><td align="left" valign="top">3 (1.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (2.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (1.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Satisfied</td><td align="left" valign="top">41 (25)</td><td align="left" valign="top">13 (27.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">28 (24.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Very satisfied</td><td align="left" valign="top">118 (72)</td><td align="left" valign="top">34 (70.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">84 (72.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Preference for visit type, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>In person</td><td align="left" valign="top">88 (53.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">39 (81.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">49 (42.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Virtual</td><td align="left" valign="top">76 (46.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (18.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">67 (57.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Receive same care during telehealth visit, n (%)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">126 (77.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">31 (64.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">95 (82.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">More satisfied with telehealth or in-person visits, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Telehealth</td><td align="left" valign="top">82 (50)</td><td align="left" valign="top">10 (20.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">72 (62.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>In person</td><td align="left" valign="top">82 (50)</td><td align="left" valign="top">38 (79.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">44 (37.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Willing to have more telehealth visits in future, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">138 (84.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">38 (79.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">100 (86.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.26</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="table2fn1"><p><sup>a</sup>Data were available for 163 participants (overall).</p></fn><fn id="table2fn2"><p><sup>b</sup>Data were available for 162 participants (overall).</p></fn><fn id="table2fn3"><p><sup>c</sup>Data were available for 161 participants (overall).</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>Multivariate analysis showed that 54% (88/164) of all participants reported a preference for in-person visits and 46% (76/164) for virtual visits. Furthermore, 81% (39/48) of rural patients preferred in-person visits compared with only 42% (49/116) of urban patients (<italic>P</italic>&#x003C;.001). More urban patients were satisfied with telehealth visits compared with rural patients (72/116, 62% vs 10/48, 20%; <italic>P</italic>&#x003C;.001). Both rural and urban patients had predominantly Medicare insurance (20/32, 63% vs 67/129, 51%); however, the proportion of Medicaid patients was greater in the urban population (26/129, 20% vs 4/32, 13%). Patients with Medicaid insurance preferred virtual visits to in-person visits (19/30, 63% vs 11/30, 37%, <italic>P</italic>=.03). Even with shorter travel times and fewer barriers to in-person visits, urban patients were more likely to prefer virtual visits compared with rural patients (OR 5.93, 95% CI 2.73&#x2010;14.1) and were more satisfied with telehealth visits compared with in-person visits (OR 6.22, 95%, CI 2.91&#x2010;14.3; <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). Other factors associated with patient satisfaction with telehealth visits included age (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93&#x2010;0.99) and comfort with their device (OR 6.08, 95% CI 3.75&#x2010;10.9). However, after adjusting for age, sex, location, and comfort with the device in a multivariable logistic regression, comfort with the device was the only significant predictor of patient satisfaction with telehealth visits compared with in-person visits (adjusted OR 5.80, 95% CI 3.30&#x2010;11.3; <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="t3" position="float"><label>Table 3.</label><caption><p>Association of patient characteristics with telehealth satisfaction and preference.</p></caption><table id="table3" frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"/><td align="left" valign="bottom" colspan="2">Prefers virtual visits, OR<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table3fn1">a</xref></sup> (95% CI)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom" colspan="2">More satisfied with telehealth than in person, OR (95% CI)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom" colspan="2">Satisfaction with virtual visit, OR (95% CI)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"/><td align="left" valign="bottom">Unadjusted</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Adjusted</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Unadjusted</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Adjusted</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Unadjusted</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Adjusted</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Age (y)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0.96 (0.92&#x2010;0.99)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0.99 (0.95&#x2010;1.04)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0.96 (0.93&#x2010;0.99)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1.01 (0.96&#x2010;1.05)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1.00 (0.97&#x2010;1.04)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1.02 (0.98&#x2010;1.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="7">Sex</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;Female</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;Male</td><td align="left" valign="top">2.53 (1.35&#x2010;4.82)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1.77 (0.77&#x2010;4.09)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2.72 (1.46&#x2010;5.18)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2.04 (0.87&#x2010;4.88)</td><td align="left" valign="top">3.38 (1.68&#x2010;7.08)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2.84 (1.38&#x2010;6.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Comfort with device</td><td align="left" valign="top">5.36 (3.37&#x2010;9.33)</td><td align="left" valign="top">4.78 (2.81&#x2010;8.88)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6.08 (3.75&#x2010;10.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">5.80 (3.30&#x2010;11.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1.39 (1.05&#x2010;1.86)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1.52 (1.03&#x2010;2.25)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="7">Location</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;Rural</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1 (reference)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">&#x2003;Urban</td><td align="left" valign="top">5.93 (2.73&#x2010;14.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1.18 (0.36&#x2010;3.79)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6.22 (2.91&#x2010;14.3)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1.09 (0.32&#x2010;3.51)</td><td align="left" valign="top">1.06 (0.49&#x2010;2.18)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0.60 (0.23&#x2010;1.54)</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="table3fn1"><p><sup>a</sup>OR: odds ratio.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s4" sec-type="discussion"><title>Discussion</title><p>Rural patients in our study reported more difficulty attending in-person visits due to double the transportation time and were more likely to cancel these appointments due to transportation issues. Despite these challenges, rural patients reported higher satisfaction with in-person visits compared with urban patients. In contrast, rural patients experienced more technical difficulties during telehealth visits, reported less comfort with their devices, and used their smartphones less frequently. Notably, comfort with device use emerged as the strongest predictor of telehealth satisfaction, suggesting that lower technological literacy may underlie the lower preference for telehealth observed among rural patients.</p><p>Telehealth use has expanded rapidly, particularly during the post&#x2013;COVID-19 pandemic era, due to its advantages in convenience, access, and timeliness [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>]. Prior studies have demonstrated high satisfaction among both patients and health care providers, supporting telehealth as a viable alternative to in-person care [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>]. Within the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, telehealth has been successfully integrated into inflammatory bowel disease clinics, with associated improvements in patient satisfaction and disease-specific quality of life [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>]. In hepatology specifically, telehealth interventions have also been used to help support sleep, stress management, and nutrition [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>]. Within academic gastroenterology and hepatology practices, factors associated with higher satisfaction have included younger age, race, and type of visit [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>]. However, broader socioeconomic factors are increasingly recognized as important contributors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>]. Prior reviews have demonstrated that income and education level are key determinants of telehealth accessibility and are closely linked to lower electronic health literacy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>]. Consistent with this literature, our study found that preference for virtual visits was associated with younger age, urban location, smartphone or tablet use, and greater comfort with technology. We also observed significantly lower telehealth satisfaction among rural patients, which appeared to be primarily driven by reduced comfort with devices and lower technology literacy. Although age alone was not independently associated with visit-type preference in multivariable analysis (OR 0.97; <italic>P</italic>=.20), patients with Medicaid insurance, used as a proxy for income, were more likely to prefer virtual visits (<italic>P</italic>=.03), highlighting the complex interaction between socioeconomic factors and telehealth preferences.</p><p>Telehealth has been shown to increase access to care through methods of improving availability and affordability [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">23</xref>]. However, persistent challenges remain, particularly related to infrastructure limitations such as broadband access and gaps in technology literacy. Our results show that rural patients are disproportionately affected by both barriers. While the Infrastructure Act of 2021 promised US $65 billion toward improving broadband access, addressing connectivity alone may be insufficient. Targeted efforts to improve technology literacy are likely necessary to fully realize the benefits of telehealth in rural populations.</p><p>To better understand potential solutions, our survey asked patients to identify resources that might help them with their visits in the future. Proposed interventions included a step-by-step &#x201C;how-to&#x201D; guide for accessing visits, a loaned tablet with a preloaded telehealth app, and a hospital-based app for tracking weight or medication management. A total of 80% (131/164) of patients expressed interest in additional resources, with the most endorsed intervention being a &#x201C;how-to&#x201D; guide focusing on accessing visits. These findings suggest that relatively low-cost educational interventions may meaningfully improve telehealth satisfaction. Future studies should focus on implementing such interventions, particularly in rural communities, to assess whether targeted technology training and assistance can help improve health care access and patient satisfaction.</p><p>The Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system was an early adopter of telehealth and provides a useful model. Through initiatives led by the VA Office of Connected Care, established in 2015, the VA has addressed common telehealth barriers by providing loaned devices and offering structured support to improve technology literacy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref24">24</xref>]. These investments in telehealth have allowed the VA to reach a broader patient population [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">25</xref>]. Whether other health care systems and private insurers will adopt similar programs to address these barriers remains an important area for study.</p><p>Several limitations should be considered when interpreting our findings. This was a single-center study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and some patients may have favored telehealth visits due to concerns about infection risk with in-person visits. Although our survey was not validated externally, it was based on prior studies and reviewed by our hepatology colleagues and statistician to ensure appropriate content. Visit types were not stratified by routine follow-ups and acute visits, which may have played a role in satisfaction. In addition, patient-physician relationships may have confounded satisfaction ratings, as patients&#x2019; comfort with a physician may have biased their opinion on visit type. Furthermore, given the complexity of our patient population, those who answered the survey may have had higher technology literacy at baseline, potentially limiting generalizability to the broader hepatology patient population. Finally, our study did not address health care provider burden or perceived quality of care [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref26">26</xref>]. Health care provider concerns regarding limitations of physical examinations during telehealth visits were not evaluated, nor were objective clinical outcomes assessed. Future studies should incorporate both patient- and health care provider&#x2013;reported outcomes to better characterize the impact of telehealth on quality of care.</p><p>In conclusion, this study demonstrates lower satisfaction with telehealth among rural patients compared with urban patients. Our findings suggest that efforts to improve broadband access, provide appropriate devices, and enhance telehealth literacy may increase satisfaction and reduce barriers to care, including travel time and associated costs, for patients in rural areas.</p></sec></body><back><notes><sec><title>Funding</title><p>The authors declared no financial support was received for this work.</p></sec><sec><title>Data Availability</title><p>The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy concerns and compliance with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) regulations. Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.</p></sec></notes><fn-group><fn fn-type="con"><p>CH and JR conceived of the study design and methodology and developed the study protocol. CH and KK were responsible for data collection and sample preparation. JR oversaw data quality and ensured data integrity. CJ conducted the statistical analysis, interpreted the results, and generated the tables. CH and JR contributed to the interpretation of the results. CH drafted the manuscript. JR critically revised the manuscript.</p></fn><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>None declared.</p></fn></fn-group><glossary><title>Abbreviations</title><def-list><def-item><term id="abb1">OR</term><def><p>odds ratio</p></def></def-item><def-item><term id="abb2">REDCap</term><def><p>Research Electronic Data Capture</p></def></def-item><def-item><term id="abb3">VA</term><def><p>Veterans Affairs</p></def></def-item></def-list></glossary><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="ref1"><label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ramaswamy</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Yu</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Drangsholt</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Patient satisfaction with telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort study</article-title><source>J Med Internet Res</source><year>2020</year><month>09</month><day>9</day><volume>22</volume><issue>9</issue><fpage>e20786</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2196/20786</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">32810841</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref2"><label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tenforde</surname><given-names>AS</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Borgstrom</surname><given-names>H</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Polich</surname><given-names>G</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Outpatient physical, occupational, and speech therapy synchronous telemedicine: a survey study of patient satisfaction with virtual visits during the COVID-19 pandemic</article-title><source>Am J Phys Med Rehabil</source><year>2020</year><month>11</month><volume>99</volume><issue>11</issue><fpage>977</fpage><lpage>981</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/PHM.0000000000001571</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">32804713</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref3"><label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>K</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Lodaria</surname><given-names>K</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Jackson</surname><given-names>HB</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Patient satisfaction with telehealth versus in-person visits during COVID-19 at a large, public healthcare system</article-title><source>J Eval Clin Pract</source><year>2022</year><month>12</month><volume>28</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>986</fpage><lpage>990</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/jep.13770</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">36148479</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref4"><label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Triana</surname><given-names>AJ</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Gusdorf</surname><given-names>RE</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Shah</surname><given-names>KP</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Horst</surname><given-names>SN</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Technology literacy as a barrier to telehealth during COVID-19</article-title><source>Telemed J E Health</source><year>2020</year><month>09</month><volume>26</volume><issue>9</issue><fpage>1118</fpage><lpage>1119</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1089/tmj.2020.0155</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">32429770</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref5"><label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="report"><article-title>Computer and internet use in the United States: 2018</article-title><year>2021</year><access-date>2026-05-29</access-date><publisher-name>United States Census Bureau</publisher-name><comment><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/computer-internet-use.html">www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/computer-internet-use.html</ext-link></comment></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref6"><label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="web"><article-title>Increase the proportion of adults with broadband internet &#x2014; HC/HIT&#x2011;05</article-title><source>Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</source><access-date>2024-06-04</access-date><comment><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/neighborhood-and-built-environment/increase-proportion-adults-broadband-internet-hchit-05">https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/neighborhood-and-built-environment/increase-proportion-adults-broadband-internet-hchit-05</ext-link></comment></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref7"><label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Norman</surname><given-names>CD</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Skinner</surname><given-names>HA</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>eHEALS: the eHealth Literacy Scale</article-title><source>J Med Internet Res</source><year>2006</year><month>11</month><day>14</day><volume>8</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>e27</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">17213046</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref8"><label>8</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Roque</surname><given-names>NA</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Boot</surname><given-names>WR</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>A new tool for assessing mobile device proficiency in older adults: the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire</article-title><source>J Appl Gerontol</source><year>2018</year><month>02</month><volume>37</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>131</fpage><lpage>156</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0733464816642582</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">27255686</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref9"><label>9</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Parmanto</surname><given-names>B</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Lewis</surname><given-names>AN</given-names>  <suffix>Jr</suffix></name><name name-style="western"><surname>Graham</surname><given-names>KM</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Bertolet</surname><given-names>MH</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Development of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ)</article-title><source>Int J Telerehabil</source><year>2016</year><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>3</fpage><lpage>10</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5195/ijt.2016.6196</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">27563386</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref10"><label>10</label><nlm-citation citation-type="web"><article-title>Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes</article-title><source>U.S. Department of Agriculture</source><access-date>2024-06-04</access-date><comment><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes</ext-link></comment></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref11"><label>11</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bensted</surname><given-names>K</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>C</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Freiman</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hall</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Zekry</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Gastroenterology hospital outpatients report high rates of satisfaction with a telehealth model of care</article-title><source>J Gastroenterol Hepatol</source><year>2022</year><month>01</month><volume>37</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>63</fpage><lpage>68</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/jgh.15663</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">34402105</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref12"><label>12</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Capusan</surname><given-names>KY</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Fenster</surname><given-names>T</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Patient satisfaction with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic in a pediatric pulmonary clinic</article-title><source>J Pediatr Health Care</source><year>2021</year><volume>35</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>587</fpage><lpage>591</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.pedhc.2021.07.014</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">34417077</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref13"><label>13</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kruse</surname><given-names>CS</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Krowski</surname><given-names>N</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Rodriguez</surname><given-names>B</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Tran</surname><given-names>L</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Vela</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Brooks</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis</article-title><source>BMJ Open</source><year>2017</year><month>08</month><day>3</day><volume>7</volume><issue>8</issue><fpage>e016242</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016242</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">28775188</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref14"><label>14</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Serper</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Nunes</surname><given-names>F</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Ahmad</surname><given-names>N</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Roberts</surname><given-names>D</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Metz</surname><given-names>DC</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Mehta</surname><given-names>SJ</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Positive early patient and clinician experience with telemedicine in an academic gastroenterology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic</article-title><source>Gastroenterology</source><year>2020</year><month>10</month><volume>159</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>1589</fpage><lpage>1591</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.034</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">32565015</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref15"><label>15</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cross</surname><given-names>RK</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Langenberg</surname><given-names>P</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Regueiro</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>A randomized controlled trial of TELEmedicine for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (TELE-IBD)</article-title><source>Am J Gastroenterol</source><year>2019</year><month>03</month><volume>114</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>472</fpage><lpage>482</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41395-018-0272-8</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">30410041</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref16"><label>16</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mauro</surname><given-names>E</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Marciano</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Torres</surname><given-names>MC</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Roca</surname><given-names>JD</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Novillo</surname><given-names>AL</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Gadano</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Telemedicine improves access to hepatology consultation with high patient satisfaction</article-title><source>J Clin Exp Hepatol</source><year>2020</year><volume>10</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>555</fpage><lpage>562</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jceh.2020.04.017</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">33311892</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref17"><label>17</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Evon</surname><given-names>DM</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>C</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Rollason</surname><given-names>C</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Group-based telehealth stress management-lifestyle interventions are feasible for patients with chronic liver disease</article-title><source>Hepatol Commun</source><year>2025</year><volume>9</volume><issue>12</issue><fpage>e0849</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/HC9.0000000000000849</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">41264908</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref18"><label>18</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chang</surname><given-names>WC</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>MS</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>YH</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>SC</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Effects of integrative telehealth-based nutrition care with and without oral nutritional supplements in patients with liver and colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial</article-title><source>Nutrition</source><year>2025</year><month>07</month><volume>135</volume><fpage>112768</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.nut.2025.112768</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">40233464</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref19"><label>19</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Siegel</surname><given-names>CA</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Transforming gastroenterology care with telemedicine</article-title><source>Gastroenterology</source><year>2017</year><month>04</month><volume>152</volume><issue>5</issue><fpage>958</fpage><lpage>963</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.048</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">28192101</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref20"><label>20</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Arora</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Thornton</surname><given-names>K</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Novel models of hepatitis C virus care delivery: telemedicine, Project ECHO, and integrative care</article-title><source>Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken)</source><year>2020</year><month>07</month><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>5</fpage><lpage>7</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/cld.912</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">32714515</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref21"><label>21</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>RH</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>LM</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Wong</surname><given-names>EL</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>D</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>The association between patients' eHealth literacy and satisfaction with shared decision-making and well-being: multicenter cross-sectional study</article-title><source>J Med Internet Res</source><year>2021</year><month>09</month><day>24</day><volume>23</volume><issue>9</issue><fpage>e26721</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2196/26721</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">34559062</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref22"><label>22</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Campanozzi</surname><given-names>LL</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Gibelli</surname><given-names>F</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Bailo</surname><given-names>P</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Nittari</surname><given-names>G</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Sirignano</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Ricci</surname><given-names>G</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>The role of digital literacy in achieving health equity in the third millennium society: a literature review</article-title><source>Front Public Health</source><year>2023</year><volume>11</volume><fpage>1109323</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fpubh.2023.1109323</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">36891330</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref23"><label>23</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Anawade</surname><given-names>PA</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Sharma</surname><given-names>D</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Gahane</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>A comprehensive review on exploring the impact of telemedicine on healthcare accessibility</article-title><source>Cureus</source><year>2024</year><month>03</month><volume>16</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>e55996</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7759/cureus.55996</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">38618307</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref24"><label>24</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Heyworth</surname><given-names>L</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Shah</surname><given-names>N</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Galpin</surname><given-names>K</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>20 years of telehealth in the Veterans Health Administration: taking stock of our past and charting our future</article-title><source>J Gen Intern Med</source><year>2024</year><month>02</month><volume>39</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><fpage>5</fpage><lpage>8</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s11606-024-08617-w</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">38378981</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref25"><label>25</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Myers</surname><given-names>US</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Birks</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Grubaugh</surname><given-names>AL</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Axon</surname><given-names>RN</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Flattening the curve by getting ahead of it: how the VA Healthcare System is leveraging telehealth to provide continued access to care for rural veterans</article-title><source>J Rural Health</source><year>2021</year><month>01</month><volume>37</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>194</fpage><lpage>196</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/jrh.12449</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">32282955</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref26"><label>26</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bloomberg</surname><given-names>L</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hong</surname><given-names>P</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hepburn</surname><given-names>C</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Changes in provider responsibilities and associated outcomes for cirrhotic patients with telehealth: a single-center, retrospective study</article-title><source>J Telemed Telecare</source><year>2026</year><month>02</month><volume>32</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>112</fpage><lpage>117</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/1357633X251323185</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">40080886</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><supplementary-material id="app1"><label>Multimedia Appendix 1</label><p>Supplemental materials including survey questionnaire and other data tables.</p><media xlink:href="aging_v9i1e85018_app1.docx" xlink:title="DOCX File, 31 KB"/></supplementary-material></app-group></back></article>