Client satisfaction in a feasibility study comparing face-to-face interviews with telepsychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We carried out a pilot study comparing satisfaction levels between psychiatric patients seen face to face (FTF) and those seen via videoconference. Patients who consented were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group received services in person (FTF from the visiting psychiatrist) while the other was seen using videoconferencing at 128 kbit/s. One psychiatrist provided all the FTF and videoconferencing assessment and follow-up visits. A total of 24 subjects were recruited. Three of the subjects (13%) did not attend their appointments and two subjects in each group were lost to follow-up. Thus there were nine in the FTF group and eight in the videoconferencing group. The two groups were similar in most respects. Patient satisfaction with the services was assessed using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), completed four months after the initial consultation. The mean scores were 25.3 in the FTF group and 21.6 in the videoconferencing group. Although there was a trend in favour of the FTF service, the difference was not significant. Patient satisfaction is only one component of evaluation. The efficacy of telepsychiatry must also be measured relative to that of conventional, FTF care before policy makers can decide how extensively telepsychiatry should be implemented.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".