Client acceptability and quality of life – telepsychiatry compared to in-person consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated client satisfaction and one-month mental health outcomes for telepsychiatry clients compared with those undergoing a face-to-face psychiatric consultation. Clients were asked to complete an SF-12 health survey before the consultation, a satisfaction survey after the consultation, and were contacted for a one-month follow-up SF-12 survey by telephone. Forty-eight of the 62 initial responders (77%) were available for contact by telephone after one month. Telepsychiatry clients demonstrated significant improvements on pre- and post-SF-12 mental health measures (t = 3.7; P = 0.001), while there was no change for the in-person group (t = 1.0; P = 0.35). Telepsychiatry clients felt that they could present the same information as in person (93%), were satisfied with their session (96%), and were comfortable in their ability to talk (85%); this was similar to the in-person clients. They reflected slightly lower levels of satisfaction regarding feeling supported and encouraged than did the in-person clients. Both telepsychiatry clients and traditional face-to-face psychiatry clients were satisfied with their experience of mental health care service provision, and mental health improvements were evident in the telepsychiatry patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".