The acceptability to patients of video-consulting in general practice: semi-structured interviews in three diverse general practices.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To improve patient access to healthcare, the UK government has encouraged technology-based approaches including internet video-consulting. However, little is known about patient acceptance of video-consulting as a consulting method. We aimed to explore primary care patients' views video-consulting. METHOD: We used semi-structured interviews to survey 270 patients in NHS Lothian. Three diverse General Practices were chosen purposively and sequential patients attending the practice at a range of different times of day were invited to participate. Patients were asked to indicate their level of computer proficiency and provide their views on the use of video-call consulting and what specific applications it might have. We found that 135 of 270 respondents (50%, 95% CI 43.9%-56.1%) would use video-consulting. Patients under 60 years were over two times more likely to use it (OR 2.2, 95% CI 2.1-6.6, n = 248) and evidence of a positive trend between increasing computer proficiency and those who would video-consult was found, (χ2 = 43.97, p < 0.0005, n=270). Patients who had previously used video-calling services (such as Skype™)were approximately six times more likely to favour video-consulting than those who had not (OR 5.9, 95% CI 3.5-9.9, n = 270). CONCLUSIONS: This suggests strong patient interest in video-consulting in primary care, however, it is possible that in the short to medium term there may be access inequality favouring younger and more technically able people. Further studies are needed to determine the content, safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of employing this medium.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it