MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302287628 · doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.09.017

Caregiver and Clinician Experience With Virtual Services for Children and Youth With Complex Needs During COVID-19

2022· article· en· W4302287628 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Theall, Kim Arbeau, Ajit Ninan, Keith A. Willoughby, Michelle Ponti, Laurie Arnold, Nevena Dourova, Melissa Currie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Health Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyWestern UniversityChild and Family Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoneStakeholderService delivery frameworkService (business)NursingQuality (philosophy)PsychologyMedicineMedical educationBusinessPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, support services for children and youth quickly shifted to virtual means. To continue delivering essential, trauma-informed, specialized services, the center transitioned to providing most services by phone/video conference. METHOD: A quality improvement project using survey methods was conducted to determine if virtual delivery was timely and satisfactory for inpatient and outpatient care. RESULTS: Findings indicated services were timely. Caregivers appreciated the support, felt a personal connection with staff, and confirmed services met their goals and expectations. However, challenges faced by staff included engaging the child/youth by phone/video, loss of collaboration with colleagues, and concerns about fulfilling their role through virtual means. DISCUSSION: Understanding stakeholder experiences illuminated the path of quality improvement during this major shift in service delivery. Benefits were shown for a blended model of in-person and virtual services on the basis of clinical judgment and the unique needs of clients and families in considering future service model options.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Health CareSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207