Implementation outcomes of synchronous videoconferencing groups at an ambulatory hospital: a pragmatic evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Group health interventions are a common and important part of health promotion, self-management, and treatment of many physical and mental illnesses. They are increasingly delivered virtually through videoconferencing services, spurred at first by limitations to in-person services in rural communities and then because of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as an ongoing desire for flexibility in how care is provided. We conducted a pragmatic evaluation of the implementation of group health interventions following the shift to synchronous videoconferencing delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic across an ambulatory hospital in Toronto, Canada. Data from the electronic health record (EHR), and surveys from group facilitators and patients were descriptively analysed. Results Thirty-six groups were identified from EHR data; 3540 patients participated in at least one group. Self-reported data from N = 40/48 (83%) facilitators, N = 1309/1967 (66%) pre-group patients and N = 412/2609 (16%) post-group patients were included. Although 1/5 experienced technical or practical barriers, facilitators and patients felt videoconferencing groups were appropriate for accessing care. Most patients (79%) felt participation made their health issue at least somewhat better. Those with visible and invisible disabilities noted videoconferencing groups addressed barriers to in-person participation. Facilitators and patients rated their experience as 8.5 and 8.4 (out of 10) respectively; both preferred to retain the option of videoconferencing groups in the future. Conclusions Our data demonstrate that synchronous video groups across a variety of clinical departments in the hospital setting are acceptable and feasible from both the patient and facilitator perspective. These findings inform how technological innovations in care can be used to strengthen the ongoing delivery of health care services.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".