Patients’ perspective of telephone visits during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With the cessation of non-urgent clinical office visits due to the coronavirus, there has been a rapid shift to telephone and other virtual visits in outpatient practice. We conducted a survey to evaluate patients' perspective of telephone visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Patients receiving a scheduled telephone call as a virtual visit from urologists at our clinic were asked to participate in a three-minute, self-administered, online questionnaire. After verbal permission was obtained, the survey was emailed to each participant. The outcomes evaluated were telephone visit satisfaction and preference for type of appointment. Non-parametric tests were used to analyze the results. The study was approved by the Sunnybrook Research Ethics Board. RESULTS: A total of 102 participants were included; 96% of participants assessed the telephone visit as a positive experience in every survey question, while 45% expressed no preference. In those who expressed a preference, this was evenly divided between in-office visits and phone visits (p=0.0614). Participants who lived more than 75 km from the hospital were less likely to prefer an in-office visit compared to those residing locally (U=433, p=0.006; odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.106-0.779, p=0.0142). CONCLUSIONS: In this survey, most participants assessed the telephone visit positively. Almost half had no preference and a similar proportion expressed a preference for in-office and telephone visits. Patients who resided farther from the hospital were more likely to prefer the telephone visit. This is the first study that we know of to assess patients' preferences regarding remote encounters in urology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".