Use of Video Consultations for Patients With Hematological Diseases From a Patient Perspective: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The need for the use of telemedicine is expected to increase in the coming years. There is, furthermore, a lack of evidence about the use of video consultations for hematological patients, and how the use of video consultations is experienced from the patients' perspective. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify patients' experiences with the use of video consultations in place of face-to-face consultations, what it means to the patient to save the travel time, and how the roles between patients and health care professionals are experienced when using video consultation. This study concerns stable, not acutely ill, patients with hematological disease. METHODS: The study was designed as an exploratory and qualitative study. Data were collected through participant observations and semistructured interviews and analyzed in a postphenomenological framework. RESULTS: The data analysis revealed three categories: "Intimacy is not about physical presence," "Handling technology," and "Technology increases the freedom that the patients desire." CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates what is important for patients with regards to telemedicine and how they felt about seeing health care professionals through a screen. It was found that intimacy can be mediated through a screen and physical presence is not as important to the patient as other things. The study further pointed out how patients valued being involved in the planning of their treatment. The patients also valued the freedom associated with telemedicine and actively took responsibility for their own course of treatment. Patients felt that video consultations allowed them to be free and active, despite their illness.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".