Parent Perceptions of the Value of Pediatric Neurology Clinic Visits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little data available on the acceptability to parents, of alternate methods of delivering care to their children. This pilot study explored parents' perceptions of conventional clinic visits and their attitudes to potential alternative methods of delivering care. METHODS: Questionnaires were completed by the families of 200 consecutive children before and after a visit to a tertiary-care Pediatric Neurology Clinic in Nova Scotia, Canada. RESULTS: Responses were received from 172 (86%) for the first questionnaire and 138 (69%) for the second. There were 59 new referrals, 76 follow-up visits and 39 were seen because of new concerns. Visiting the clinic resulted in school absenteeism for 85% of the children and lost pay for 19% of the parents. Telephone, video conference or replacement of the physician by a nurse practitioner were acceptable alternate methods of assessment for only 10%. The only factor which was associated with willingness to accept telephone as an assessment modality was an initial opinion that the visit was unnecessary. CONCLUSION: Escalating health care costs and limited specialist availability demand consideration of alternate methods of care delivery. Although adults seem comfortable with care outside the usual clinic setting, there is little data for the pediatric setting. The responses from the parents attending our clinic, indicate that families were happy with services offered in the conventional clinic. In contrast, only 10% found potential alternate methods acceptable. These opinions must be considered in the design of new methods of caring for children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".