MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404695972 · doi:10.2196/60574

Characteristics, Barriers, and Facilitators of Virtual Decision-Making Capacity Assessments During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Online Survey

2024· article· en· W4404695972 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lesley Charles, Eric Tang, Peter George Jaminal Tian, Karenn Chan, Suzette Brémault‐Phillips, Bonnie Dobbs, Camelia Vokey, Sharna Polard, Jasneet Parmar

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsCovenant HealthUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPandemicDemographicsHealth careDescriptive statisticsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PopulationFamily medicineNursingPsychologyEnvironmental healthDiseaseDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With a growing older adult population, the number of persons with dementia is expected to rise. Consequently, the number of persons needing decision-making capacity assessments (DMCA) will increase. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted how we deliver patient care including DMCAs with a much more rapid shift to virtual assessments. Virtual DMCAs offer patients and health care professionals distinct advantages over in-person delivery by improving reach, access, and timely provision of health care. However, questions have arisen as to whether DMCAs can be effectively conducted virtually. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the characteristics, barriers, and facilitators of conducting virtual DMCA during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey among health care providers who perform DMCAs in Alberta from March 2022 to February 2023. The survey consisted of 25 questions on demographics, preferences, and experience in conducting DMCAs virtually, and risks and barriers to doing virtual DMCAs. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There were 31 respondents with a mean age of 51.1 (SD 12.7) years. The respondents consisted of physicians (45.2%, 14/31), occupational therapists (29%, 9/31), and social workers (16.1%, 5/31), with a majority (93.6%, 29/31) based in Edmonton. The mean number of years of experience conducting DMCAs was 12.3 (SD 10.7), with a median of 8 DMCAs (IQR 18.5) conducted per year. Most respondents conduct capacity interviews, with a majority (55.2%, 16/29) being associated primarily with acute care services. Furthermore, 54.8% (17/31) were interested in conducting DMCAs virtually; however, only 25.8% (8/31) had administered DMCAs virtually. Barriers and facilitators to virtual DMCAs relate to patients' characteristics and environment (such as communication difficulties, hearing or visual impairment, language barriers, ease of use of technology, or cognitive impairment), technology and technical support (need for technical support in both the client's and assessor's sides, the unreliability of internet connection in rural settings, and the availability of high-fidelity equipment), and assessors' ability to perform DMCA's virtually (ability to observe body language, interact with the client physically when needed, and build rapport can all be affected when conducting a DMCA virtually). In terms of implications for clinical practice, it is recommended that the patient or caregiver be familiar with technology, have a stable internet connection, use a private room, not be recorded, use a standardized assessment template, and have a backup plan in case of technical difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting DMCAs virtually is a relatively infrequent undertaking. Barriers and facilitators to adequate assessment need to be addressed given that virtual assessments are time-saving and expand reach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207