Virtual Care in the Age of COVID-19: A Longitudinal Study on its Utilization and Perceived Effectiveness by Canadian FPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented changes in physician practices, especially by transitioning the primary method of care delivery from in-person to virtual. This study investigates the adoption and utilization of virtual care by Canadian family physicians throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To evaluate the frequency of use of different virtual care modalities by family physicians during the pandemic, to understand how virtual care has impacted access to, and the quality of at the different pandemic time points. Study Design: Online, self-report survey administrated at the beginning of Covid-19 pandemic in May 2020, a year after and in May and June 2022. Personalized survey invitations and two reminders were sent via email to College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) members. Setting or Dataset: The lists of all active CFPC members were utilized to reach family physicians from diverse practice settings across Canada at each of the three time points. A total of 7,934 family physicians (FPs) completed at least one of the three surveys. Population studied: The study included all active members of the CFPC with primary addresses in Canada. Outcome Measures: The frequency of using video calls, telephone, email, and text messaging in FPs’ practice was evaluated via a five-point Likert scale. FPs assessed the impact of virtual care on access and quality of care. They estimated their weekly virtual care usage and compared their current patient care types frequency with their post-pandemic ideals. Results: While the percentage of FPs resorting using often or very frequently video, email, or text messages has been observed to decrease between the second and third survey, the use of telephone contact has seen a slight increase. Additionally, there’s increasing belief that virtual care has improved patient access to care, mental health care, and patient interactions and relationships. During the pandemic’s onset, 87% of office visits/contacts were managed virtually. A year later, this fell to 50%, and further decreased to 26% another year later. More in-person care (68% to 73%) and less telephone care (29% to 22%) are seen as ideal after the pandemic. Conclusions: Most Canadian FPs intend to continue using virtual care post-pandemic. Despite anticipating in-person care will remain predominant in their practice, FPs perceive potentials of virtual care to improve patient access and enable high-quality care for their patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".