The acceptability of two remote monitoring modalities for patients waiting for services in a physiotherapy outpatient clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Access to public rehabilitation services for patients with non-urgent conditions - which suffer mainly from musculoskeletal disorders - is problematic around the world. Remote rehabilitation services are recognized as effective means to increase accessibility. Patient acceptability is an important element in the successful implementation of such clinical innovations and has not yet been studied thoroughly in this context. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the acceptability of two remote consultation modalities - phone and teleconsultation - for patients waiting for public outpatient non-urgent rehabilitation services. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study nested within a randomized clinical trial in which participants received either phone or teleconsultation follow-ups with a physiotherapist after a first systematic face-to-face evaluation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of both groups selected with purposive sampling. Sekhon's acceptability metaframework was used and interviews were transcribed and coded with thematic analysis. ETHIC APPROVAL: The research protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux - Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l'Estrie - CHUS) (#2019-2919). RESULTS: Twenty participants were recruited. Results show both follow-up modalities have a good level of acceptability for participants; however, teleconsultation stands out because its visual dimension offers higher quality human contact and satisfactorily meets greater needs for support. CONCLUSION: Systematic in-person assessment and advice combined with telephone or teleconsultation follow-up can contribute to diversifying the services offered in physiotherapy outpatient clinics. Offering a range of service modalities with different resource requirements may shorten wait times. Such an approach seems to be well accepted by patients, especially with teleconsultation. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT03991858.
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 | 0.034 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".