P153 A patient-led survey into the benefits and limitations of telemedicine appointments for assessing children and young people with rheumatic conditions in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background/Aims During the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, some healthcare provision shifted to remote, technology-assisted appointments (telemedicine). This study sought the views of parents/carers about telemedicine, identifying the benefits and limitations, to assist in improvement to future service provision. Methods An online survey was developed and shared via social media and direct contacts, targeted at parents of children with rheumatic and autoinflammatory conditions in Canada. Fieldwork took place during May 2021. Consent was provided during enrolment. Results A total of 157 responses were received (78% female, median age 12). The primary diagnosis for the majority was juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA; 39% polyarticular, 15% oligoarticular, 8% enthesitis-related JIA, 6% psoriatic, and 9% systemic). Respondents reported in-person appointments represent a considerable time burden (87% travel more than an hour to attend; 40% take a full day [or more] out of school to attend; 38% of parents take a full day off work). During the pandemic, the proportion having a telemedicine appointment increased from 5% to 82%. Table 1 shows the scores (1 worst, 5 best) given by parents about their telemedicine experience. Overall, most aspects scored positively (p<.05). However, parents felt telemedicine was not as good as in-person appointments (mean 2.66, 95% CI 2.42-2.90). The majority of respondents reported telemedicine appointments had saved them time (68%), and many said it enabled them to have an appointment (63%) and made the appointment safer (59%), and many said it saved money (44%). However, 78% felt that their consultant could not properly assess their child, 22% were concerned that the doctor could not identify changes in their child’s condition, 14% said it was hard to explain their child’s condition, and 18% of parents and 22% of CYP disliked telemedicine. Overall, 61% said they would prefer the next appointment to be in-person, while 31% were amenable to some combination of in-person and virtual care. Conclusion There are advantages to telemedicine, notably saving time and making appointments accessible, and overall parents reported satisfaction with remote appointments. However, parents continue to report the value of in-person appointments. Disclosure J. Wilson: None. W. Costello: None. S. Angevare: None. R.P. Beesley: None.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».