Can paediatric and adolescent gynecological care be delivered via Telehealth?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Paediatric and adolescent gynecology (PAG) is an evolving subspecialty, with patients often having to travel large distances to access care. The goal of the present study was to assess whether Telehealth (TH) would be appropriate for PAG services in a tertiary care centre and to determine patient/family interest. METHODS: The present study was a prospective observational study of patients who attended PAG clinics over the course of one year. Patient data collected on each visit included postal code, diagnosis, availability of a local hospital with TH, patient appropriateness for TH and patient/family reasons for accepting TH. Visits were stratified by diagnosis to determine if certain conditions were more amenable to TH. RESULTS: From the total visits through the year (July 15, 2008 to July 15, 2009), 1541 (79.6%) patients were approached for participation; 8 (0.5%) declined. The final sample size was 1533 patient visits. Four hundred sixty-nine visits (30.6%) were potentially appropriate for TH based on geography. According to clinic physicians, only 51 of these 469 visits (10.9%) were appropriate for TH. The main reasons for being inappropriate were the need for physical examination (n=238, 57.0%), imaging (n=57, 13.6%), or issues regarding sexuality/privacy (n=45, 10.8%). Of the 51 appropriate visits, 28 patients/families (55.0%) expressed interest in TH. Of those not interested in TH, the main reasons included the desire for a face-to-face encounter and the need to coordinate with other health care appointments. CONCLUSION: Of the patient visits considered for TH (based on the fact that patients lived a considerable distance from the hospital), 10.9% were deemed appropriate for TH by the PAG team, but 45.0% of families/patients in this group said they would prefer a traditional clinic visit. Currently, TH appears to be appropriate for only a small subset of patients/families.
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 | 0.003 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".