MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136324582 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.01.048

078 Patient Satisfaction with Telemedicine Appointments in an Academic Andrology-focused Urology Practice during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021· article· en· W3136324582 on OpenAlexaff
Blair Shiff, Frankel Jm, J. Stuart Oake, Preeti Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineHealthcare deliveryHealth careFamily medicineMedical emergencyDiseaseInternal medicineVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has reshaped the landscape of healthcare delivery in much of the world, with telemedicine becoming the standard mode of outpatient healthcare delivery over a span of just a few weeks. There have been no studies to date examining the feasibility of telemedicine in an Andrology-focused urology setting. To evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments at an Andology-focused academic urology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between March and June 2020, all appointments at the Andrology-focused practice of a single academic urologist were conducted by telephone. Consecutive patients were contacted by telephone following their appointment to complete a telephone questionnaire. Baseline demographic information was obtained, and perceptions regarding telephone appointments were assessed using a Likert scale. Ninety-six patients completed the telephone questionnaire. Median age was 58.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 37.3-62.8 years) with 55/96 (57.3%) of the appointments Andrology-focused. Mean distance of residence from the hospital was 8.4 km (IQR 4.7-25.2 km). Only 9/96 (9.3%) of the patients felt that the telephone format did not adequately address their needs. However, 26/96 (27.1) patients said they would prefer an in-person appointment. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, gender, presenting complaint, type of appointment, education level, and employment status, no factors were associated with feeling that the telephone appointment adequately addressed needs or preference for an in-person appointment in the future. Patients were generally satisfied with telephone appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, a substantial portion of patients said they would prefer in-person appointments in the future. Work supported by industry: no.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207