Acceptability of Telemedicine Among Parents of Adolescent Patients in an Adolescent Clinic: Cross-sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, new literature has described the perceptions of adolescent patients on the use of telemedicine for their health care, but less attention has been devoted to parents' and caregivers' perspectives on telemedicine usage for their adolescents. Parents' perspectives are important, as they undoubtedly influence how children learn to make decisions about their health care. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the level of acceptability (measured based on accessibility and satisfaction) expressed by caregivers of adolescent patients with regard to telemedicine visits in an urban adolescent medicine practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent electronically to parents and guardians of patients aged <18 years who completed outpatient telemedicine visits to an adolescent medicine practice in Chicago, Illinois, from March 2020 to February 2021. The questions focused on accessibility and satisfaction. The data were analyzed to describe response frequencies. RESULTS: Among a sample of 71 survey respondents, the vast majority reported that telemedicine was very easy to use (58/71, 82%) and was at least as convenient as in-person visits (70/71, 99%). Over 90% of respondents reported that their adolescents' needs were addressed (69/69, 100%) and that they were at least as comfortable with the level of privacy and the confidential conversations between their adolescents and medical providers in telemedicine visits (65/71, 92%) as they were with those in in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that parents and guardians find telemedicine to be an acceptable way for their children and adolescents to receive appropriate health care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".