MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920077325 · doi:10.24926/jrmc.v2i1.1374

Postgraduate trainee views on eHealth at a distributed medical campus.

2019· article· en· W2920077325 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sophiya Benjamin, Joanne Ho, Jeff Alfonsi, Hugh Kellam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Regional Medical Campuses · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingRegional Municipality of WaterlooWestern UniversityUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealtheHealthGeneral partnershipMedical educationTelemedicineGeriatricsNeeds assessmentMedicinePsychologyNursingHealth careSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: e-Health is a rapidly evolving field that cuts across specialties however; there is a gap in development and evaluation of training for postgraduates in residency programs. This is a multicentre, collaborative effort among faculty from the departments of Psychiatry, Geriatrics and Internal Medicine in partnership with Ontario Telehealth Network to assess the needs of postgraduate residents in ehealth and build a pilot program to address identified learning gaps.
 Methodology: We conducted a needs assessment (Appendix A) through an online survey to investigate the self-perceived knowledge, gaps and barriers to eHealth of medical resident physicians at the McMaster University DeGroote School of Medicine Waterloo Regional Campus (WRC), Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
 Results: All respondents identified that they would be interested in education in telehealth and all of them felt that they would have to use telehealth in their future practices. However, 83.3% did not feel confident using telemedicine in clinical practice. Based on the results of the needs assessment, we have built a pilot rotation in which postgraduate trainees can practice telehealth skills in an interdisciplinary setting.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Regional Medical CampusesSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207