Background Rural populations face disproportionate barriers to healthcare access, often due to geographic isolation and limited provider availability. Prior studies have shown that increased travel time negatively affects appointment adherence. Telemedicine has emerged as a potential solution, but understanding its utilization in rural populations remains ongoing.

Methods This retrospective cross-sectional observational study analyzed all scheduled appointments (n=5,548) from a single rural family medicine clinic in the Pacific Northwest United States during 2024. One-way travel times were calculated using the Google Maps Distance Matrix API and categorized into Short (<15 minutes), Medium (15-30 minutes), and Long (>30 minutes) commute groups. Proportions for utilization and cancellations of both telemedicine and in-person appointments were assessed across commute groups using chi-square tests (p < 0.05 considered significant).

Results Overall, the proportion of cancellations were significantly higher among patients with Long commutes (36.2%) compared to Medium (31.0%) and Short (32.2%) commute groups (p < 0.001). Telemedicine utilization increased proportionately with commute time (7.7% for Long commute patients vs. 1.5% for Short; p < 0.001). However, telemedicine cancellation proportions did not significantly differ across groups (21.2% for Long, 13.3% for Medium, 17.0% for Short; p = 0.122), suggesting comparable telemedicine adherence regardless of distance. The proportions for in-person appointment utilization and cancellation were both greatest for the Short commute group.

Conclusion Longer travel times are associated with increased appointment cancellations for rural patients, reinforcing travel burden as a key barrier to care. Telemedicine use increases with commute distance and demonstrates consistent adherence across groups, indicating its value as a tool to address rural healthcare gaps. These findings support the continued expansion of telehealth infrastructure to improve care for geographically isolated populations.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The body that provided ethics exemption for the research was an institutional Medical Staff Quality Improvement Committee. They deemed the study of minimal risk to patients given it's retrospective nature and approved the analysis of data and the publication of findings.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

* Rural healthcare; Appointment adherence; Travel time; Telemedicine; Health disparities; Primary care

* actually submitted to JTH

The authors do not have permission to distribute the data used as it would risk the privacy of the patients involved. If there are any inquiries about the data, please contact the corresponding author to answer any questions.