Telehealth and COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview of the Telehealth Use, Advantages, Challenges, and Opportunities during COVID-19 Pandemic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of telehealth and digital health platforms has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the implementation of physical distancing measures and restrictions. To address the pandemic threat, telehealth was promptly and extensively developed, implemented, and used to maintain continuity of care offered through multi-purpose technology platforms considered as virtual healthcare facilities. The aim of this paper is to define telehealth and discuss some aspects of its utilization, role, and impact, but also opportunities and future implications particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to support our reflection and consolidate our viewpoints, numerous bibliographical sources and relevant literature were identified through an electronic keyword search of four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate). In this paper, we consider that telehealth to be a very interesting approach which can be effective and affordable for health systems aiming to facilitate access to care, maintain quality and safety of care, and engage patients and health professionals and users of health services. However, we also believe that telehealth faces many challenges, such as the issue of lack of human contact in care, confidentiality, and data security, also accessibility and training in the use of platforms for telehealth. Despite the many challenges it faces, we believe telehealth has enormous potential for strengthening and improving healthcare services. In this paper, we also call for and encourage further studies to build a solid and broad understanding of telehealth challenges with its short-term and long-term clinical, organizational, socio-economic, and ethical impacts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it