Patients' Perceptions Regarding Home Telecare
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While home telecare's potential to reduce health care costs appears clear, patients' perceptions regarding this new technology have not been studied. We conducted structured interviews to elicit patients' perceptions regarding home telecare. We developed a 34-item survey instrument, which was administered during structured home interviews to a convenience sample of patients who were currently or had previously been enrolled in the Sonora Health System or University of California Davis home telecare pilot projects. Fifteen (56%) of the 27 past or present enrollees agreed to be interviewed. Most had either a neutral (9 of 15, 60%) or positive (5 of 15, 33%) outlook regarding home telecare before their enrollment. Following enrollment, all were either very satisfied (10 of 15, 67%) or somewhat satisfied (5 of 15, 33%) with services they had received. Fourteen of 15 (93%) were willing to receive home telecare services in the future, and all 15 would recommend home telecare to friends or family members. Despite education to the contrary, patients perceived that the presence of telecare equipment in the home implied 24-hour-a-day access to a nurse. Some interviewees felt uncomfortable disclosing intimate information during televisits, and others lamented the reduced amount of time nurses spent "socializing" as compared to in-person visits. Despite concerns regarding its confidentiality and its ability to approximate the social stimulation of in-person nursing visits, patients in these pilot trials seemed satisfied with home telecare and appeared ready to accept its widespread use.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it