Telehealth in Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe patient, research staff, and clinician perspectives regarding the effects of telehealth and remote clinical trial operations on safety, quality, and experience in gynecologic oncology clinical trials. METHODS: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews conducted from May to June 2022 with purposively sampled clinical trial participants, research staff, and clinicians involved in gynecologic oncology clinical trials with telehealth utilization. Participants described telehealth in clinical trial experiences, including benefits and barriers to receipt and provision of care, satisfaction, and quality. Transcripts were coded and analyzed with a modified content analysis approach based on research objectives and emergent themes. An adapted version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire was administered to all invited participants. RESULTS: Five patients, seven clinicians, and five research staff were interviewed. Patients and clinicians reported that telehealth, remote testing, and medication delivery positively affected quality of life by reducing financial burden, wait times, and transportation needs. Interviewees did not report telehealth-related changes in treatment-related adverse effects, referrals for urgent evaluation, or compromise of privacy but expressed concerns about the lack of physical examinations. Patients reported that telehealth increased scheduling burden without negative effects on care quality, counseling comprehension, relationships with trial teams, or satisfaction. Clinicians and research staff reported improved workflows regarding remote consent, sponsor interactions, and documentation but challenges with virtual patient education and off-site testing. Clinicians highlighted disparities for patients with limited technology access and reported institutional and insurance-based telehealth policies as barriers. Survey responses supported qualitative findings. CONCLUSION: Despite notable limitations, patients, research staff, and clinicians recommended continued utilization of telehealth and remote clinical trial operations in clinical trials. Future clinical trial designs should consider telehealth inclusion.
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 | 0.044 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".