MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098458305 · doi:10.5430/jha.v4n6p56

Urban-rural difference in patients utilizing the service of telehealthcare

2015· article· en· W2098458305 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Li‐Chin Chen, Te‐Wei Ho, Chih‐Yuan Shih, Fong-Ci Lin, Feipei Lai, Jingwen Guo, Mei-Hua Zhuang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityRural areaMedicineService (business)Patient portalMedical emergencyWorld Wide WebHealth careComputer scienceBusinessMarketingHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are concerns about the unbalanced distribution of healthcare resources between rural and urban areas. There have been attempts to use existing healthcare resources more effectively through telehealthcare. Usability is an important indicator for evaluating patient behavior and determining service improvements. Nevertheless, usability has not been studied extensively enough. This study analyzed the usability differences between urban and rural areas in Taiwan for a web portal used in a telehealthcare program. Data were collected for two years. Usability data includes the frequency of web portal patient logins, the frequency of glucose measurements, whether the records were transmitted to the system through 3G networks automatically or were manually inputted, and the correlation of the mean 3-month daily glucose levels and HbA1c results. Patients in urban areas logged into the web portal more frequently (p < .001) and recorded glucose levels more frequently (p = .003). More patients in the rural area transmitted their daily glucose levels using devices (p < .001). Mean 3-month daily glucose levels and HbA1c results appear to be highly consistent. Patients in urban areas did not readily change glucometer habits but were willing to log in to web portal and record daily glucose levels manually. Patients in rural areas were willing to use the 3G glucometer to transmit data more frequently. For patients in urban areas, web portals should provide more information and smart applications. For patients in rural areas, the application should be simple and easy to use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207