MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Revisiting Project Definition/Initiation for Telemedicine Services

2019· book-chapter· en· W4236748133 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Wood, Cynthia LeRouge, Bengisu Tulu, Joseph Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthTelemedicineTelecareBusiness modelBusinessKnowledge managementBusiness planProcess managementConceptualizationHealth careComputer scienceMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare organizations and stakeholders are profoundly challenged in transiting a telemedicine project into a sustainable telehealth service line. While project management best practices have added values across multiple domains, a knowledge gap exists on informed execution of telehealth best practices. Project definition, or initiation, sets the strategic vision (and plan) for a project. It is the predominant stage in a project. As project initiation hugely defines project success, revisiting this stage for telemedicine may help to inform key actors on ways to achieve an optimal delivery of such services. Indeed, winning telehealth services require well-knitted intra- and inter-organizational collaboration on technology adoption across different organizational arrangements and among key stakeholders. Hence, a model redefining key project initiation components is used to drive our analysis. Drawing from collected data of a multisite telestroke implementation and anchoring on the model's conceptualization, the authors explore in-depth how project initiation can be strategically framed within the telemedicine context. The interpretative findings from the data analysis, with each case surmising a distinct telemedicine business model, provide further insights on the collaborative uptake of telestroke programs. More specifically, the authors extend the analysis through comparative examination of key factors that promote or impede adoption via the lens of five distinct telecare business models: (1) the outsourced model; (2) the alliance model; (3) the not-for-profit private hospital network model; (4) the not-for-profit university sponsored network model; and (5) the for-profit private hospital network model. Together, the insights provided by this contribution will help efforts directed towards contextualizing key elements of project initiation in telemedicine and highlight the alignments of critical factors that can impact future telehealth efforts.

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)0.156
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1560.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0110.016
Scholarly communication0.0240.018
Open science0.0050.017
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207