Touching Technology—Parents’ Experiences of Remote Consultations for Children With Severe Congenital Cardiac Conditions: Quasi-Experimental Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Remote consultations (RCs) using videoconferencing was recommended by the General Medical Council as the method for clinicians to provide patient consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Facilitating this while providing high-quality care depends on the usability and acceptability of the technology. Objective: This project aimed to investigate parents' experiences of using videoconferencing technology for real-time RCs with children who had congenital heart defects during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Methods: This study's design was quasi-experimental and was underpinned by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model that seeks to explain and predict an individual's intention to use a technology. Parents were informed of this study by the medical team, posters were made available in the wards and clinics, and leaflets were left for browsing. Clinician screening of potential participants led to the identification of 33 children and parents who were enrolled on this study. The intervention was a web-based RC by medical staff using a secure, interactive videoconferencing platform (Pexip). Each child and their mother or father received 8 RCs with the same specialist doctor or nurse. Measurements were taken using web-based questionnaires pre and post consultation at the first, middle, and last events; questions were focused on the acceptability, usability, and clinical applicability of RCs. Parents' experiences were explored using recorded interviews and analyzed thematically. Results: In total, 29 children aged 4-1052 (mean 95, SD 191.14) days completed the project, receiving a total of 189 RCs as part of their routine care. Parents' prior experience of consultation via videoconference was low; however, as time progressed, their use and acceptance of the technology increased. The intervention was warmly received by all parents who found the face-to-face component particularly useful for discussion with their child's medical team. Furthermore, parents noted the savings on time, money, and childcare. Conclusions: While in-person consultations are considered the gold standard of patient care, increasing pressures on health services and staff reduce availability. Given the ease of access and additional benefits experienced by parents and their children, it is proposed that hybrid models of consultation and care provision are equal, if not superior, to in-person consultations in the management of children with severe congenital heart defects while reducing costs and pressure on the health service and parents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".