MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366334399 · doi:10.46747/cfp.6904e78

Redesigning primary care

2023· article· en· W4366334399 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jamie Fujioka, Megan Nguyen, Michelle Phung, Onil Bhattacharyya, Leah Kelley, Vess Stamenova, Nike Onabajo, Michael Kidd, Laura Desveaux, Ivy Wong, R. Sacha Bhatia, Payal Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkNorth York General HospitalTrillium Health CentreArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)Women's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonprobability samplingRemunerationThematic analysisVirtual patientFlexibility (engineering)MedicinePrimary careQualitative researchSample (material)Family medicineAsynchronous communicationNursingMedical educationComputer sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care physician (PCP) perspectives on the clinical utility of virtual visits. DESIGN: Qualitative design involving semistructured interviews. SETTING: Primary care practices within 5 regions in southern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians representing different practice sizes and remuneration models. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with PCPs who were involved in a large-scale pilot implementation of virtual visits (patient-provider asynchronous messaging, or synchronous audio or video communication). The first phase involved a convenience sample of users in the first 2 regions where the pilot was initiated; after implementation in all 5 regions, purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity within the sample (eg, physicians representing different use frequencies of virtual visits, regions, and remuneration models). Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify prominent themes and subthemes. MAIN FINDINGS: Twenty-six physicians were interviewed. Fifteen were recruited using convenience sampling and 11 through purposive sampling. Four themes regarding the clinical utility of virtual visits were identified: virtual visits can effectively resolve many patient concerns, with some variation in PCP comfort using virtual visits for specific conditions; virtual visits are beneficial for a range of patients but some patients might overuse or inappropriately use them; PCPs prefer to use asynchronous messaging (eg, text or online messaging) because of its convenience and flexibility; and virtual visits can provide value at the patient, provider, and health system levels. CONCLUSION: While participants believed that virtual visits can be appropriately used to resolve a variety of clinical concerns, they found in practice that virtual visits are fundamentally different from face-to-face encounters. Professional guidelines on appropriate use cases should be established to develop a standard framework for virtual 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 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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207