MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305119236 · doi:10.1177/1357633x16635342

A prospective comparison of telemedicine versus in-person delivery of an interprofessional education program for adults with inflammatory arthritis

2016· article· en· W2305119236 on OpenAlexaff
Carol Kennedy, Kelly Warmington, Carol Flewelling, Rachel Shupak, Angelo Papachristos, Caroline Jones, Denise Linton, Dorcas Beaton, Sydney Lineker, Sheilah Hogg‐Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsArthritis SocietyHealth CanadaInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeeMedicineGeneralized estimating equationConfidence intervalPhysical therapyArthritisRheumatoid arthritisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction We evaluated two modes of delivery of an inflammatory arthritis education program (“Prescription for Education” (RxEd)) in improving arthritis self-efficacy and other secondary outcomes. Methods We used a non-randomized, pre-post design to compare videoconferencing (R, remote using telemedicine) versus local (I, in-person) delivery of the program. Data were collected at baseline (T 1 ), immediately following RxEd (T 2 ), and at six months (T 3 ). Self-report questionnaires served as the data collection tool. Measures included demographics, disorder-related, Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (SE), previous knowledge (Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit (ACREU) rheumatoid arthritis knowledge questionnaire), coping efficacy, Illness Intrusiveness, and Effective Consumer Scale. Analysis included: baseline comparisons and longitudinal trends (R vs I groups); direct between-group comparisons; and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) analysis. Results A total of 123 persons attended the program (I: n = 36; R: n = 87) and 111 completed the baseline questionnaire (T 1 ), with follow-up completed by 95% ( n = 117) at T 2 and 62% ( n = 76) at T 3 . No significant baseline differences were found across patient characteristics and outcome measures. Both groups (R and I) showed immediate effect (improved arthritis SE, mean change (95% confidence interval (CI)): R 1.07 (0.67, 1.48); I 1.48 (0.74, 2.23)) after the program that diminished over six months (mean change (95% CI): R 0.45 (−0.1, 0.1); I 0.73 (−0.25, 1.7)). For each of the secondary outcomes, both groups showed similar trends for improvement (mean change scores (95% CI)) over time. GEE analysis did not show any meaningful differences between groups (R vs I) over time. Discussion Improvements in arthritis self-efficacy and secondary outcomes displayed similar trends for I and R participant groups.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207