MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418803054

Collaborative Approaches to e-Health: Valuable for Users and Non-users.

2005· article· en· W2418803054 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Safran, Grace Pompilio-Weitzner, Kathryn Emery, Louis C. Hampers

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicaidThe InternetMedicineNursingFamily medicineHealth careWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe parental use of an Internet-based educational and emotional support system, in a regional NICU program. METHODS: Baby CareLink was installed in NICUs in 4 Denver area hospitals in 2003. Parents were offered access from hospital terminals and from any other Internet access point. Data on use of the program was collected by the computer system. Discharge status was verified by Colorado's Department of Public Assistance. RESULTS: Of the 388 families admitted to Denver area NICUs with Baby CareLink during the study period, 135 (34.8%) were identified as Medicaid families (needing public assistance). After exclusions, data for 81 Medicaid and 154 non-Medicaid families were available for analysis. Medicaid families who accessed 3 or more Baby CareLink web pages per day took their infants home 17.5 days sooner than families who used Baby CareLink less often (p=0.03). Among the non-Medicaid families, more frequent users of Baby CareLink took their infants home 14.3 days sooner (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Internet portals will be used by both Medicaid and non-Medicaid parents with children in NICUs to meet educational needs. More frequent use of Baby CareLink was associated with significantly shorter length of stay. Self-help tools for parents may free nursing resource for families with greater 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207