‘There’s a lot less time on small talk’: Rural patient perspectives on shifting to technology-enabled healthcare in Canada during COVID-19
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 objective of this qualitative research study was to explore system, provider, and patient level factors from the perspective of rural-living citizens in Canada and how these factors influenced their telehealth experiences. Participants were recruited in follow-up to an online survey which asked for interest in participation in focus groups to talk about telehealth experiences. Twenty-two rural citizens participated in one of five focus groups. The qualitative data from the focus groups were thematically analyzed. The overarching theme that described rural participants’ experiences of telehealth during the pandemic was navigating the shifting care model. Two main themes were constructed from the data: shifts in the patient-provider relationship and mismatch between the telehealth requirements and provider and system support. Relational shifts involved a transactional or business-like relationship with their providers, that was reflected in changes in etiquette practices, personalization of care, and communication dynamics. Mismatch in telehealth system requirements and support was reflected in shifting personal and infrastructure technology requirements, blurred boundaries of health data access and privacy, and shifting appointment logistics. Continued use and expansion of technology-enabled healthcare must consider patient perspectives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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