MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406191158 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313766

Use of virtual care near the end of life before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based cohort study

2025· article· en· W4406191158 on OpenAlexafffund
Kieran L. Quinn, Thérèse A. Stukel, Allan S. Detsky, Hannah Chung, Mohammed Rashidul Anwar, R. Sacha Bhatia, James Downar, Vivian Hung, Sarina R. Isenberg, Allison Kurahashi, Douglas S. Lee, Nathan M. Stall, Peter Tanuseputro, Chaim M. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchBruyèreUniversity of OttawaSinai Health SystemWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsPoisson regressionPandemicMedicineEnd-of-life carePopulationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CohortHealth careCohort studyEthnic groupDemographyGerontologyEnvironmental healthNursingInternal medicinePalliative careDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The expanded use of virtual care may worsen pre-existing disparities in use and delivery of end-of-life care among certain groups of people. We measured the use of virtual care in the last three months of life before and after the introduction of virtual care fee codes that funded care delivery at the start of COVID-19 on March 14, 2020, and identified changes in the characteristics of people using it. METHODS: We used linked clinical and administrative datasets to study use of virtual care in the last three months of life among 411,564 adults who died between January 25, 2018, and November 30, 2022. Modified Poisson regression was used to measure the association of the use of virtual care in the last three months of life with the pandemic study period and its association with each person- and physician-level factor. RESULTS: 14,261 people (8%) used virtual care in the last three months of life before the pandemic, and 161,000 people (69%) used it during the pandemic (relative risk [RR] 8.76; 95% CI 8.48-9.05). Several individual patient characteristics were associated with statistically significant increases in the use of virtual care after March 14, 2020 (following the introduction of virtual care fee codes), compared to before such as among older adults, ethnic minorities, multiple chronic comorbid health conditions and higher frailty groups. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of new fee codes broadening technology and funding for end-of-life care at the start of pandemic combined with pandemic-related effects was associated with a substantial increase in the use of virtual care near the end of life among certain groups and a general leveling of pre-existing disparities in its use. Virtual end-of-life care delivery may strengthen person-centredness for individuals with limited ability to attend in-person appointments and by providers who may not have previously engaged in such 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 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)0.004
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→