Telephone and web‐based pediatric day surgery questionnaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient questionnaires are popular tools for assessing and improving service quality, especially as administrators are increasingly expected to consider the patient's voice in their decision making. Despite web-based questionnaire advantages, they have not been previously compared to telephone questionnaires for assessing quality. The purpose of this paper is to compare telephone questionnaire administration with a web-based version. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Day surgery patients from a tertiary pediatric hospital completed a telephone interview and a web-based questionnaire with identical questions. The appropriateness of the web version as a telephone version substitute was ascertained by comparing the number of changes in responses, non-responses, differences in means, the number of non-substantive responses and reliability. FINDINGS: The web-based questionnaire tended towards more negative responses. The mean number of missing responses did not differ between versions, although the web-questionnaire had more "not sure" responses. Inter-rater reliability was acceptable. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Parents without internet access were unable to participate. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The web-based questionnaire is a good substitute for telephone-administered questionnaires. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper shows that parents were able to rate items more candidly owing to the increase in privacy and lack of interviewer bias, which is crucial for improving health service quality.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".