MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2206522914 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144784

Do “Virtual” and “Outpatient” Public Health Tuberculosis Clinics Perform Equally Well? A Program-Wide Evaluation in Alberta, Canada

2015· article· en· W2206522914 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Long, Courtney Heffernan, Zhiwei Gao, Mary Lou Egedahl, James Talbot

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetropolitan areaTelemedicineOutpatient clinicPublic healthFamily medicineHealth carePopulationMedical emergencyNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Meeting the challenge of tuberculosis (TB) elimination will require adopting new models of delivering patient-centered care customized to diverse settings and contexts. In areas of low incidence with cases spread out across jurisdictions and large geographic areas, a "virtual" model is attractive. However, whether "virtual" clinics and telemedicine deliver the same outcomes as face-to-face encounters in general and within the sphere of public health in particular, is unknown. This evidence is generated here by analyzing outcomes between the "virtual" and "outpatient" public health TB clinics in Alberta, a province of Western Canada with a large geographic area and relatively small population. METHODS: In response to the challenge of delivering equitable TB services over long distances and to hard to reach communities, Alberta established three public health clinics for the delivery of its program: two outpatient serving major metropolitan areas, and one virtual serving mainly rural areas. The virtual clinic receives paper-based or electronic referrals and generates directives which are acted upon by local providers. Clinics are staffed by dedicated public health nurses and university-based TB physicians. Performance of the two types of clinics is compared between the years 2008 and 2012 using 16 case management and treatment outcome indicators and 12 contact management indicators. FINDINGS: In the outpatient and virtual clinics, respectively, 691 and 150 cases and their contacts were managed. Individually and together both types of clinics met most performance targets. Compared to outpatient clinics, virtual clinic performance was comparable, superior and inferior in 22, 3, and 3 indicators, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient and virtual public health TB clinics perform equally well. In low incidence settings a combination of the two clinic types has the potential to address issues around equitable service delivery and declining expertise.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207