Assessing the Efficiency and Patient Satisfaction of Telemedicine in Managing Chronic Health Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Telemedicine, also known as e-health, utilizes computer technology to deliver clinical healthcare remotely. Since its inception in the 1960s, telemedicine has evolved significantly, offering several advantages to both patients and healthcare providers, including remote care and monitoring. This study contributes to existing literature by exploring the effectiveness of telemedicine and patient satisfaction in managing health conditions in Canada, with a focus on service delivery, accessibility, efficiency, doctor-patient relationships, and network interconnectivity. The study aims to identify key challenges and barriers to telemedicine efficacy, including patient experience, technologic and accessibility issues, healthcare provider perspectives, and potential future improvements. Methods: The research population comprises Canadians, including family doctors, specialists, pharmacists, and patients. A questionnaire featuring closed-ended questions was used to collect primary data. Results: The study found that telehealth is widely accepted in Canada, with 73.1% of respondents reporting ease of use, and 48.1% disagreeing that telehealth is time-consuming. Additionally, the findings indicate high satisfaction levels regarding expertise and technical challenges on telehealth platforms, with 47.4% of participants stating that it provided easier access to instructions. The study underscores the necessity for a robust legal framework and increased patient education on privacy risks. Conclusion: The study concludes that telehealth can help reduce costs, decrease waiting times, and support regional reference centers. However, its broader societal impact remains uncertain. The COVID-19 pandemic improved telemedicine measures, yet effective use requires reliable smartphone or computer connectivity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".