MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S871 Patient Satisfaction With and Access to Virtual Healthcare for Inflammatory Bowel Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2022· article· en· W4316077550 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maida Sewitch, Karen V. MacDonald, Deborah A. Marshall, Geoffrey C. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePandemicHealth careInflammatory bowel diseaseFamily medicineDescriptive statisticsModalitiesTelemedicineDiseasePatient satisfactionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered changes to healthcare delivery from in-person to virtual visits. The study objective is to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods: An online survey using closed- and open-ended questions was conducted in English and French among Canadian adults ( >18 years) with IBD (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, IBD-unclassified). Survey questions were specific to patient experiences receiving healthcare for IBD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistics, frequency tabulations and qualitative analysis were used to analyze data. Results: Preliminary analysis of 158 respondents (mean age 34.3 (sd 10.3), 87% female, 52% university degree or higher, 90% white) show that 44% received all IBD care virtually, 4% received all care in-person, 51% used both modalities and 2% did not receive care during the pandemic. Of those that received virtual care, 38% were totally satisfied, 51% were somewhat satisfied, and 11% were not satisfied with the care received. Virtual visits were done mostly using phone calls. Respondents classified access to healthcare providers during the pandemic as easier (14%), about the same (61%) or more difficult (25%) compared to before the pandemic. Virtual visits were a good option for follow-up visits and simple checkups as respondents indicated they were safe, timely and convenient and avoided travel and parking costs. Some respondents felt listened to but others felt rushed, dismissed and in need of a physical examination. For patients starting with a new doctor, virtual visits left them feeling disconnected. When the doctor missed the virtual visit, respondents expressed difficulties rescheduling the appointment. Going forward, respondents want to continue having options for: virtual visits by either phone and videoconferencing; online access to test results and scheduling of appointments; email communication with the nurse/doctor; and faxing prescriptions to the pharmacy. Conclusion: During the pandemic, most respondents had received some of their IBD healthcare virtually and were satisfied with the care received. The majority reported having about the same access to their IBD healthcare providers as before the pandemic. Despite needing to improve some virtual services such the rescheduling of missed virtual visits, nearly all survey respondents wanted virtual health care to continue into the future.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→