MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156653513 · doi:10.1258/135763305775124911

An e-health needs assessment of medical residents in Cameroon

2005· article· en· W2156653513 on OpenAlexaff
Richard E. Scott, Peter N Ndumbe, Richard Wootton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicinePhoneMobile phoneMedicineNeeds assessmentRural areaHealth careIsolation (microbiology)Medical emergencyNursingFamily medicineComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical residents from Yaounde I University in Cameroon are required to spend periods of time in rural or remote locations to complete their training. To determine if e-health might lessen their isolation and enhance patient care, a needs assessment of the residents was performed using a brief questionnaire (five items) about the situation in which residents found themselves outside their medical school environment. We gave the questionnaires to 45 residents. Seventeen questionnaires had been returned at the time of the site visit, a response rate of 38%. Most residents indicated that the ability to contact a mentor would have either made them feel more confident (16, or 94%) or altered their handling of recent cases (15, or 88%). All residents had access to a mobile phone, and many (11, or 65%) had used it to contact a medical colleague for guidance. A low-cost and technologically simple telemedicine solution that maximized use of mobile phone capability, provided access to medical and health-care information, and permitted exchange of images would be an appropriate response to the identified needs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207