A fetal telecardiology service: patient preference and socio‐economic factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate patients' opinions on a fetal cardiology telemedicine service compared with usual outpatient care, the effect of the telemedicine consultation on maternal anxiety and its impact on travel times and time absent from work. METHODS: Prospective study over 20 months. Eligible patients attended for routine anomaly scan followed by fetal echocardiogram transmitted to the regional centre with live guidance by a fetal cardiologist, followed by parental counselling. All patients were offered a fetal cardiology appointment at the regional centre. Structured questionnaires assessing maternal satisfaction, travel times/days off and anxiety scores completed at time of both fetal echocardiograms. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were recruited and 66 completed the study. Participants expressed very high satisfaction rates with fetal telecardiology, equivalent to face-to-face consultation. The telecardiology appointments were associated with significantly reduced travel times and days off work (p < 0.01). Expectant mothers expressed a clear inclination for a fetal cardiology appointment at the local hospital facilitated by telemedicine (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Fetal telecardiology is highly acceptable to patients and is even preferred compared with travelling to a regional centre. There are additional socio-economic benefits that should encourage the development of remote fetal cardiology services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".