Comparing the trends of MBS telepsychiatry and consultant physician telehealth services from 2017 to 2022: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Medicare Benefit Schedule (MBS) telehealth items were expanded in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. We measured the use of MBS telepsychiatry items compared to consultant physician telehealth items within the context of these item changes, to understand differences in telepsychiatry and physician telehealth utilisation. METHODS: Monthly counts of face-to-face and telehealth (videoconferencing and telephone) MBS items for psychiatrists and physicians from January 2017 to December 2022 were compiled from Services Australia MBS Item Reports. Usage levels were compared before and after telehealth item expansion. Usage trends for MBS telepsychiatry and physician telehealth items were compared in time-series plots. RESULTS: Telehealth item expansion resulted in a greater rise of telepsychiatry services from 3.8% beforehand to 43.8% of total services subsequently, compared with physician telehealth services (from 0.6% to 20.0%). More physician telehealth services were by telephone compared with telepsychiatry services. Time-series of both telehealth services displayed similar patterns until mid-2022, when physician telehealth services declined as telephone items were restricted. Telepsychiatry services consistently comprised a greater proportion of total services than physician telehealth services. CONCLUSIONS: MBS psychiatrist services showed a more substantial and persistent shift to telehealth than physician services, suggesting a greater preference and use of telepsychiatry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".