Videoconferencing in Pressure Injury: Randomized Controlled Telemedicine Trial in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Geographical, financial and travel-related barriers may impact access to necessary health care for people in need of long-term follow-up. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to perform a nonblinded, randomized, controlled trial on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), healing, interaction, and satisfaction of patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and PI receiving multidisciplinary videoconference consultations from a wound clinic to the participant's home versus regular outpatient care. The multidisciplinary team consisted of a medical doctor, a wound nurse, and an occupational therapist. In both groups, district nurses attended the consultations at the participant's home. METHODS: A total of 56 participants, 28 in each group, were randomized to a videoconference group (VCG) or a regular care group (RCG). Validated questionnaires were used to measure and compare the follow-up effect on HRQoL. Percentage reduction of wound volume was measured at end of the follow-up. A Likert scale was used to measure the satisfaction of the patients and district nurses regarding the interaction between different modalities of care in the 2 groups. RESULTS: The HRQoL did not show significant differences between the 2 groups (P values ranging from .09 to .88) or the rate of PI healing, experienced interaction, and satisfaction in the groups. A total of 67% (37/55) of all PIs healed, 64% (18/28) in the VCG and 70% (19/27) in the RCG. Mean reduction in ulcer volume was 79% in the VCG and 85% in the RCG (P=.32). A Kaplan-Meier plot with a logrank test regarding time to healing did not show any significant difference between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Videoconference-based care seems to be a safe and efficient way to manage PIs in terms of HRQoL, healing, interaction, and satisfaction compared to conventional care for people with SCI. This should be considered when planning for future care. SCI has a huge impact on the individual, the family, and the health care system. There is an urgent need to improve systems of care so that individuals who live far from specialists and require long-term follow-up for conditions such as PI can get optimal treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02800915; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02800915 and Current Research Information System in Norway (CRISTIN) 545284; https://app.cristin.no/projects/show.jsf?id=545284.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".