MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206544902 · doi:10.2478/jhp-2021-0011

Telemedicine in haemophilia during COVID-19 and beyond: a comprehensive review

2021· review· en· W3206544902 on OpenAlexaff
Casey Li, Anthony K.C. Chan, Davide Matino, Mihir D. Bhatt, Kay Decker, Karen Strike

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Haemophilia Practice · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesRegional Municipality of NiagaraMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineHaemophiliaMedicineTelehealthMEDLINEPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Medical emergencyHealth careFamily medicineNursingPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Patients with haemophilia require regular assessments and physical examinations. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine to enable virtual consultations and reduce hospital visits. However, the process of virtual consultations is new to many haemophilia clinics. A better understanding of best practices in telemedicine is important to ensure optimal quality of care for patients with haemophilia. Objectives To summarise the current literature on the use of direct-to-consumer telemedicine for patients with haemophilia and to describe the effectiveness and potential limitations of the technology and methods used. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases using terms referring to the concepts “haemophilia” AND “telemedicine” and their synonyms. There were no time or language restrictions. Title, abstracts, and full texts were screened. Included articles involved telemedicine interventions to facilitate clinical services directly between patients and providers without the use of third-party personnel. The primary outcome was the satisfaction of providers and patients. Secondary outcomes included economic considerations and clinical outcomes. Information was extracted based on study-specific, patient-specific, intervention-specific, and outcome-specific data. Results Of the 925 articles screened, six were identified and summarised. Three described telemedicine within the context of COVID-19. Technologies used included telephone calls, videoconferencing, text messaging, and email. All studies involved a multidisciplinary team. Telemedicine in haemophilia care was found to positively impact the patient experience. Providers were satisfied with telemedicine. It was also suggested to be economically beneficial and positively impacted patient outcomes. However, none of the articles reported on how telemedicine was specifically used to perform assessments during the virtual consultation process. Conclusions There is preliminary evidence that telemedicine may be beneficial in haemophilia care. Overall, patients and providers reported high satisfaction with the usage of direct-to-consumer telemedicine. This positive reception warrants improvements in standardisation of reporting and quality of study design to better assess its clinical and economic impact. Developing a standard guideline for virtual consultations would support healthcare practitioners in how to best incorporate telemedicine to improve quality of care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 Haemophilia PracticeSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207