Evaluating Telehealth Implementation in the Context of Pediatric Chronic Pain Treatment during COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telehealth has emerged as a promising healthcare delivery modality due to its ability to ameliorate traditional access-level barriers to treatment. In response to the onset of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, multidisciplinary pain clinics either rapidly built telehealth infrastructure from the ground up or ramped up existing services. As the use of telehealth increases, it is critical to develop data collection frameworks that guide implementation. This applied review provides a theoretically-based approach to capitalize on existing data sources and collect novel data to inform virtually delivered care in the context of pediatric pain care. Reviewed multisource data are (1) healthcare administrative data; (2) electronic chart review; (3) clinical health registries; and (4) stakeholder feedback. Preliminary telehealth data from an interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain management clinic (PPMC) serving youth ages 8-17 years are presented to illustrate how relevant implementation outcomes can be extracted from multisource data. Multiple implementation outcomes were assessed, including telehealth adoption rates, patient clinical symptoms, and mixed-method patient-report telehealth satisfaction. This manuscript provides an applied roadmap to leverage existing data sources and incorporate stakeholder feedback to guide the implementation of telehealth in pediatric chronic pain settings through and beyond COVID-19. Strengths and limitations of the modeled data collection approach are discussed within the broader context of implementation science.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".