MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984301415 · doi:10.1258/jtt.2009.009004

Telehealth readiness assessment tools

2010· review· en· W1984301415 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Émilie Légaré, Claude Vincent, Pascale Lehoux, Donna Anderson, Dahlia Kairy, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon, Penny Jennett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsJewish Rehabilitation HospitalUniversité LavalUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTelehealthNursingHealth carePsychologyMedical educationMedicineKnowledge managementTelemedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In planning a telehealth project, a readiness assessment can help to improve the chances of successful implementation by identifying the stakeholders and the factors that should be targeted. We conducted a literature search and identified six questionnaires on readiness that can be used when implementing telehealth projects. Only one of them was sufficiently generic to be used with all kinds of telehealth projects and with different groups of participants (patients and public, health-care practitioners and organization personnel like health-care managers and technical support managers), but it had rather limited psychometric evaluation. Two of them had had good psychometric evaluation but they were specific to particular telehealth projects and groups of stakeholders. All six published questionnaires were in English. We have developed and validated a French-Canadian version of the practitioner and organizational telehealth readiness assessment tool.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207