Adolescent and Caregiver Attitudes Towards Telemedicine Use in Pediatric Nephrology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Telemedicine is increasingly utilized as an alternative to in person consultation. Current pandemic conditions are providing additional impetus to virtual care delivery. We aimed at comparing both pediatric patient and caregiver attitudes towards telemedicine (here as tertiary center to remote health care location) as a crucial determinant of longer-term effectiveness. Methods: This mixed methods cohort study combined patient characteristics and analysis of transcribed structured telephone interviews with both pediatric nephrology patients (11-18 years) and their caregivers. Results: For 11 child-parent dyads, the median distances to tertiary center were 191 km (range 110-1378 km) and 1 km (1-54 km) to remote telemedicine location. Overall a ratio of 2:1 for telemedicine to in-person visits was favored; with caregivers more in favor of remote care than patients. Qualitative analysis found that experiences with telemedicine were distinguished by consultation-specific factors and contextual factors. Contextual factors (travel/cost savings) were valued for telemedicine by patients and caregivers. Consultation-specific factors, such as the ability to show the doctor physical symptoms, were more valued during in-person consultations, especially by patients. The overall visit type preference was related to the nature of the consultation. For regular check-ups, and for patients with less complex needs, participants felt that telemedicine offered a comparable experience to in-person visits. Conclusions: Indiscriminate transfer to chronic care predicated on mainly telemedicine approach is not compatible with user expressed attitudes (especially patients). Accurately mapping models of care to these attitudes is an essential determinant of effective management and longer-term engagement with potentially life-long health challenges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".