MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097931972 · doi:10.1258/13576330260440781

Predicting success: Stakeholder readiness for home telecare diabetic support

2002· article· en· W2097931972 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marilynne Hebert, Marie-Josée Paquin, S.A. Iversen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecareTelehealthFocus groupStakeholderNursingHealth careSet (abstract data type)Quality (philosophy)PsychologyTelemedicineMedicineBusinessPublic relationsComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Readiness to adopt a new technology is one factor that contributes to the success of a telehealth programme. Since one goal of telehealth is to improve care, it is appropriate to determine its success through a quality-of-care framework that addresses structure, process and outcome. A qualitative case study of home care in the Calgary Health Region in Alberta set out to understand how clients, nurses, physicians and managers perceived their readiness to use video-visits for home care. Focus groups, home visits, and telephone and face-to-face interviews were used to collect data. Readiness to adopt home telecare was compared between groups, as well as with behaviour predicted in the literature. Differences in perceptions were identified among the four participant groups. Clients and managers identified a higher degree of readiness-clients because of the potential to support independence in their homes and managers because of the potential efficiencies in the system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207