02 Youth perspectives on virtual healthcare appointments in Nova Scotia – a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, public safety measures required healthcare providers to look for alternative ways of delivering care in a safe and timely fashion. This led to an escalated use of virtual appointments to continue to provide patient care. For future decision-making regarding virtual care in our community, we must consider the youth perspective to ensure our healthcare delivery meets the needs of this patient population. Objectives Our study aims to determine the perspectives of local youth patients on their experience with virtual and in-person paediatric clinic appointments. Design/Methods Participants were recruited from general and subspecialty paediatrics clinics at the IWK Health Centre, in Nova Scotia, Canada. Eligibility criteria included attending both a virtual and in-person appointment from 2019-2022. Participants completed a semi-structured interview and provided their perspective on comfort level, accessibility, participation, and general preferences between virtual and in-person clinics. Transcribed data was analyzed using thematic analysis with both inductive and deductive approaches to identify themes. Results 12 participants aged 14-18 provided interviews. Participants represented clinical areas of general paediatrics, rheumatology, diabetes clinic and gender clinic. Virtual appointments were preferred for convenience, flexibility, and efficiency during shorter conversations. In-person appointments were preferred for physical concerns, communication and relationship building. Some youth appreciated talking face-to-face for the ease of communication, feeling able to “get the point across” in this setting. The value of the in-person connection with their healthcare team was expressed by some youth, and building this relationship held importance. When appointments provided education, youth preferred for that information to be delivered in-person. Participants overall felt more comfortable during virtual appointments, and participation levels varied based on the individual and not based on an appointment being virtual versus in-person. Accessibility issues were predominantly associated with in-person appointments, with barriers including access to transportation, time spent attending appointment, and the cost of travelling to a tertiary care centre. Conclusion Youth patients have unique and individual preferences for virtual versus in-person appointments. This study provided insight into situations when each appointment type should be considered and emphasizes the importance of including the youth in the decision-making process around appointment scheduling when possible.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".