Telepsychiatry as a routine service - the perspective of the patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient perspectives were examined as part of an assessment of a routine telepsychiatry service in rural Alberta. Information was gathered through self-report questionnaires and telephone interviews. Of 379 questionnaires distributed to patients, 230 (61%) were returned. Of the patients who completed questionnaires, 89% reported being satisfied with the service and 96-99% were satisfied with the equipment and the room. Twenty-nine of 31 patients who were interviewed by telephone preferred telepsychiatry to waiting for a consultation, were willing to use the service again and would recommend telepsychiatry to a friend. While 25 of these 31 patients preferred telepsychiatry to travelling to a consultation, 15 indicated that they would prefer a face-to-face interview to telepsychiatry and a further seven were unsure. Twenty-three of the 31 patients interviewed would have had to miss time from work or pay for child care in order to travel to a conventional psychiatric consultation. The availability of telepsychiatry led to an estimated cost saving of $210 per consultation for patients who would otherwise have had to travel. From the patient's perspective, telepsychiatry was an acceptable technique in the management of mental health difficulties that both increased access to services and produced cost savings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".