Patients' and Physicians' Experience With and Acceptability of a Telemedicine Cabin: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Telemedicine represents an essential tool with the potential to reduce health costs, thus avoiding patient displacement and improving patient care outcomes, positioning it as a significant social technology. Objective: This study aims to analyze the implementation of a telehealth cabin at BP Hospital (A Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo), focusing on the evaluation of the experiences of both patients and health care professionals, as well as the acceptability of this tool. Methods: A mixed methods study was conducted with 229 participants, divided into 2 phases. The first phase involved 40 apparently healthy individuals to assess the usability, experience, and satisfaction of this group for the later safe application in the group with clinical complaints. The second phase included 189 participants, with complaints to assess the usability, experience, and satisfaction of patients and doctors. In both phases, participants completed screening questionnaires (to assess the eligibility criteria), a socioeconomic demographic questionnaire before using the cabin, and a questionnaire including the System Usability Scale and the Net Promoter Score (NPS) after using the cabin. Results: The data analysis of the first phase showed high acceptance of the telehealth cabin, which supported the progression to the second phase. In the second phase, a high usability score was observed among participants with clinical complaints (mean System Usability Scale score of 85.97, SD 15.50) and a high favorability rating (NPS score of 9.4). Health care professionals also reported favorable results, with a usability score of 67.8 and an NPS of 8.0. Conclusions: The results of this study reinforce the potential for scaling up this practice based on usability outcomes, and highlight its relevance for the development of public policies aimed at expanding access to quality health care in Brazil. This approach improves the interaction of patients with the health care system, while providing professionals with an extended view of clinical conditions through integrated devices, particularly in areas with limited access to medical care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".