A prospective satisfaction study and cost analysis of a pilot child telepsychiatry service in Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated user satisfaction with a PC-based videoconferencing system used for child psychiatry assessments and performed a cost analysis. Thirty patients (aged 5-16 years), accompanied by a parent, completed a psychiatric assessment using the videoconferencing system. One of five child psychiatrists was randomly assigned to each assessment. Satisfaction questionnaires were completed after each assessment by the psychiatrist, patient and parent. Parents also completed a cost questionnaire. The telecommunications bandwidth was 336 kbit/s. The psychiatrists stated that they were either 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the telepsychiatry assessments. On a five-point Likert scale (1 = lowest, 5 = highest), 28 of the 30 parents (93%) rated their satisfaction level as 5; the other two rated it 4. All 30 parents (100%) stated that they 'liked' the telepsychiatry assessment and would use the system again. Twenty-nine parents (97%) indicated that they would prefer to use the telepsychiatry system to travelling to see a child psychiatrist in person. Eleven children (aged 5-12) participated and all (100%) said they 'liked' using the telepsychiatry system. Five out of nine children (56%) stated they liked the 'television doctor' better than the 'real' doctor; four said they had no preference. Nineteen adolescents (aged 13-16 years) participated and most were very satisfied or satisfied with the system. Seventeen of the 19 adolescents (89%) said they would prefer to see the psychiatrist on the videoconferencing system to travelling for an assessment, and the same number said that they would use telepsychiatry again. The estimated total travel cost for the 30 patients was $12,849, an average of $428 per patient. The total cost of the telepsychiatry service for the three-month pilot was $12,575, or $419 per patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".