MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805664704 · doi:10.2196/10913

Technology-Enhanced Consultations in Diabetes, Cancer, and Heart Failure: Protocol for the Qualitative Analysis of Remote Consultations (QuARC) Project

2018· article· en· W2805664704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. E. Shaw, Deborah Cameron, Joseph Wherton, Lucas M. Seuren, Shanti Vijayaraghavan, Satya Bhattacharya, Christine A’Court, Joanne Morris, Trisha Greenhalgh

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIHR Sheffield Biomedical Research CentreNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsProtocol (science)MedicineDiabetes mellitusHeart failureQualitative researchFamily medicineMedical educationAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Remote videoconsulting is promoted by policy makers as a way of delivering health care efficiently to an aging population with rising rates of chronic illness. As a radically new service model, it brings operational and interactional challenges in using digital technologies. In-depth research on this dynamic is needed before remote consultations are introduced more widely. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study will be to identify and analyze the communication strategies through which remote consultations are accomplished and to guide patients and clinicians to improve the communicative quality of remote consultations. METHODS: In previous research, we collected and analyzed two separate datasets of remote consultations in a National Institute for Health Research-funded study of clinics in East London using Skype and a Wellcome Trust-funded study of specialist community heart failure teams in Oxford using Skype or FaceTime. The Qualitative Analysis of Remote Consultations (QuARC) study will combine datasets and undertake detailed interactional microanalysis of up to 40 remote consultations undertaken by senior and junior doctors and nurse specialists, including consultations with adults with diabetes, women who have diabetes during pregnancy, people consulting for postoperative cancer surgery and community-based patients having routine heart failure reviews along with up to 25 comparable face-to-face consultations. Drawing on established techniques (eg, conversation analysis), analysis will examine the contextual features in remote consultations (eg, restricted visual field) combined with close analysis of different modes of communication (eg, speech, gesture, and gaze). RESULTS: Our findings will address the current gap in knowledge about how technology shapes the fine detail of communication in remote consultations. Alongside academic outputs, findings will inform the coproduction of information and guidance about communication strategies to support successful remote consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying the communication strategies through which remote consultations are accomplished and producing guidance for patients and clinicians about how to use this kind of technology successfully in consultations is an important and timely goal because roll out of remote consultations is planned across the National Health Service. REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/10913.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207