MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409302957 · doi:10.1186/s41687-025-00872-7

Expert consensus on implementing patient-reported outcomes in telehealth: findings from an international Delphi study

2025· article· en· W4409302957 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversität Greifswald
KeywordsTelehealthDelphi methodDelphiMedical educationMedicineNursingTelemedicinePolitical scienceHealth careComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Using Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in clinical care can reduce healthcare service utilization by improving the quality of care. Telehealth, defined by WHO, as the use of "telecommunications and virtual technology to deliver healthcare outside of traditional healthcare facilities", can facilitate a dynamic dialogue between patients and healthcare providers for timely interventions. With the increased use of telehealth facilitated by the infrastructure development during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an opportunity to utilize telehealth for PRO implementation and a need for guidelines for using PROs via telehealth. This study aimed to generate expert consensus on the utilization of PROs in telehealth. METHODS: Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus among international experts with a predetermined consensus threshold of 70%. Experts were mainly identified through the ISOQOL Clinical Practice SIG. Surveys asked a combination of structured and open-ended questions about the conceptualization of PROs in telehealth, its applicability, target population, implementation challenges and successful strategies, evaluation approaches, and the essential stakeholders. Data from each round were iteratively analyzed using descriptive statistics (quantitative data) and content analysis (qualitative data). RESULTS: Out of 24 invitations sent, 17 completed the first round, and 11 completed all three rounds. Respondents were equally distributed between clinicians and researchers and 70% had used PROs via telehealth before the pandemic. Consensus was achieved and some of the relevant aspects are monitoring patients for applicability; individuals with chronic diseases as the target population; resources, staff buy-in, and clinical workflow as the implementation challenges and strategies; utilization metrics for evaluation; and clinicians and patients as essential stakeholders. Though consensus was not reached for the conceptualization of PROs using telehealth, the modified FDA definition of telehealth with the addition of its purpose, and the mode of administration was the most acceptable version. See attached table. CONCLUSION: The expert consensus achieved provides important insights from an international perspective on how PROs are currently used via telehealth and the needed implementation support to advance their expansion in research and practice. Lack of consensus on the definition of PROs in telehealth signals the continued rapid evolution of their use and the need for additional research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.365 · 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