Feasibility of epilepsy follow‐up care through telemedicine: A pilot study on the patient's perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cost analysis and patient satisfaction with telemedicine in epilepsy care. METHODS: This controlled study included out-of-town epilepsy patients coming to follow-up at the University of Alberta hospital epilepsy clinic. After an informed consent, patients were randomized to either conventional (n = 18) or telemedicine (n = 23) clinics. Patients or caregivers filled patient satisfaction and travel cost questionnaires in both alternatives. Cost per visit analysis included costs of traveling, lodging, and lost productivity. RESULTS: Average age of the population was 41 years (range 19-73; 45% women). Eighty-three percent of patients preferred their next visit through telemedicine. About 90% of patients indicated a need for companion travel (mainly by car) to conventional clinic. For the conventional group patients the value of lost productivity was CAD $201, hotel cost CAD $8.50, and the value of car mileage CAD $256.50, totaling about CAD $466.00. Patient costs for telemedicine were CAD $35.85. Telemedicine production costs are similar to the patients' savings in traveling and lost productivity. About 90% of patients in both groups were satisfied with the quality of the service. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine can play a role in follow-up care of epilepsy patients, reduce patient costs, and improve patient satisfaction. This is the first full-time epilepsy telemedicine clinic in Western Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".