Evaluation of a routine telepsychiatry service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An assessment was undertaken of a routine telepsychiatry service in rural areas of a Canadian province as a follow-up to a pilot telepsychiatry project. Over two years, there were 546 consultations at the five participating general hospitals, although the level of use varied considerably between them. Health professionals expressed high satisfaction with the service. While there were equipment problems in 17% of all consultations in the second year, they did not seem to affect acceptance of the technique. A cost analysis comparing consultations provided by a visiting psychiatrist and telepsychiatry found a break-even point of 348 consultations a year. However, when use of the videoconferencing network for administrative meetings was considered, the break-even point was 224 consultations a year, substantially below the actual utilization of telepsychiatry. Telepsychiatry appeared to result in increased access to community mental health services, suggesting future increased demand for these. From the perspective of health authorities and health professionals, telepsychiatry proved to be a useful and sustainable addition to existing mental health 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".