A88 PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN PERSPECTIVE OF TELE-HEALTH IN GASTROENTEROLOGY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Given the social distancing measures employed to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, tele-health has rapidly expanded and is now routinely used in new patient encounters and in follow up appointments across Canada. Aims To determine the patient and physician perspective towards tele-health in a gastroenterology outpatient setting. Methods An anonymous voluntary online survey was distributed to patients who had previously undergone at least one tele-health visit in a tertiary care gastroenterology outpatient setting. A separate online survey was distributed to gastroenterologists practising across Canada. Results A total of 181 patients from British Columbia (59.8% female) completed the survey. The tele-health appointment was the first visit for 21.8% of patients. Appointments occurred by phone call alone (61.4%) or by video and audio software (38.6%) and started within 5 minutes of the scheduled time in 75% of visits. Patient satisfaction with the tele-health visit was high (8.54 on a scale of 0–10; 0 completely dissatisfied, 10 extremely satisfied; IQR 8–10). Most patients did not perceive a difference in likelihood of compliance compared to a non-tele-health visit (90.6%), were not concerned about the lack of physical exam during a tele-health visit (82.4%) and did not with-hold information they would have revealed in person (88.7%). After the COVID-19 pandemic, some patients would prefer tele-heath visits (39.2%), whereas others would prefer in office visits (28.5%) and the remainder were indifferent (32.3%). Post-pandemic, most patients would prefer tele-health for follow up visits (68.4%), over tele-health for all possible visits (27.9%) or no tele-health visits (3.8%). A total of 25 Canadian gastroenterologists (28.0% female; 60% academic practice, 40% community practice) completed a separate survey. Regarding the lack of physical exam in tele-health, 44% of physicians believed this did not affect the quality of their assessment, whereas some physicians believed it had either minimally (48%) or greatly (8%) impaired the quality of their assessment. Almost all physicians (96%) perceived that patients either appreciate tele-health as much as or more than in office visits. Post-pandemic, most physicians (96%) supported a hybrid model of both tele-health and in office visits. Appointments for follow up of benign endoscopic pathology results (96%), follow up visits (92%), consultations prior to endoscopy (76%) were deemed to be most appropriate for tele-health. Follow up of malignant pathology results (24%) and consultations for new patients (32%) were thought to be less appropriate for tele-health visits. Conclusions Patient and physician satisfaction with tele-health in a Canadian outpatient gastroenterology setting is high. Most patients and physicians wish for tele-health to remain available in the post-pandemic setting. Funding Agencies Gastrointestinal Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".