MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283310715 · doi:10.2196/39298

Telehealth Technology Competency and Difficulties in the Therapeutic Process

2022· article· en· W4283310715 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kevin Hynes, Rachel R. Tambling, Thomas Bischoff

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthAllianceScale (ratio)TelemedicineService (business)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPsychologyExploratory researchMedicineNursingBusinessHealth carePolitical scienceMarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Telehealth therapy services increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and have the potential to shape service provision in the future. The growing body of research on telehealth services provides evidence of the efficacy of such services and the possibility for greater accessibility of counseling services for hard-to-reach clients. However, less is known regarding 2 unique processes of engaging in telehealth services, which are telehealth difficulties and perceived therapist telehealth competency. Objective This study examines the factor structure of the following 2 new measures: the Telehealth Difficulties Scale and the Therapist Telehealth Competency Scale. Methods Exploratory factor analyses were used with 223 participants who used telehealth services. Following this validation, these measures were tested with their association with the therapeutic alliance and therapy productiveness among clients of telehealth services using linear regressions. Results The study found that both measures had a one-factor structure and predicted therapeutic alliance scores. In addition, telehealth competency predicted therapy productiveness. Conclusions The implications for these results are discussed, and future directions are given. Conflict of Interest None declared.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207