MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014286509 · doi:10.1007/s10897-011-9406-5

Trends in Telehealth versus On‐site Clinical Genetics Appointments in Manitoba: A Comparative Study

2011· article· en· W2014286509 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alison M. Elliott, Aizeddin Mhanni, Sandra L. Marles, Cheryl R. Greenberg, Albert E. Chudley, Gwendolyne C. Nyhof, Bernard N. Chodirker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsResearch ManitobaUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Beekeepers' AssociationChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthMedicineOutreachGenetic counselingRural areaFamily medicineMedical geneticsPublic healthTelemedicineGerontologyNursingHealth careGeneticsPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telehealth involves the use of information and communications technology to deliver health services to patients over distance. Canada is well suited to benefit from telehealth since many individuals live in remote, rural and isolated locations. Manitoba is the easternmost prairie province and MBTelehealth is an active Canadian program that currently has 105 sites in 73 communities. Although studies of patient satisfaction comparing telehealth to on-site clinical visits have been conducted, a comparative study of the types of genetics patients seen via these two modalities has not been performed previously. In this study we: (1) examined the uptake of telehealth in Genetics in Manitoba; (2) contrasted telehealth usage in Genetics with other clinical programs; and (3) performed a comparative study of the types of Genetics referrals seen in 2008 on-site versus via telehealth. Results indicate the uptake of telehealth is increasing and has made genetics outreach clinics unnecessary. The Program of Genetics and Metabolism is consistently one of the top ten utilizers of telehealth within the province. With respect to discipline, chi square analysis revealed the trends were not significantly different for on-site and telehealth encounters, with prenatal referrals being the most common and Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer referrals being the least common. Referrals within each discipline varied depending on the need for fetal assessment and physical examination. Telehealth was utilized regularly for test results sessions across all disciplines.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207