Family- and Person-Centered Interdisciplinary Telehealth: Policy and Practice Implications Following Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth was thrust to the forefront, becoming one of the most predominant forms of care almost overnight. Despite years of research, practice, and policymaking, tenets for providing telehealth in an interdisciplinary, family- and person-centered fashion, and across a wide breadth of settings remain underdeveloped. In addition, although telehealth has the potential to increase equity in care, it can also further exacerbate disparities. The current article discusses the opening created by the pandemic and provides recommendations for how to make permanent changes in telehealth policy and practice to allow for interdisciplinary, person- and family-centered care while also taking care to address issues of equity and ethics and privacy issues related to telehealth and remote monitoring. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 46(9), 9-13.].
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 | 0.027 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".