Acceptability of introducing a patient portal for people living with HIV and their healthcare providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opal (opalmedapps.com), a patient portal in use at the Cedars Cancer Centre of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) (Montreal, Canada), gives cancer patients access to their medical records, collects information on questionnaires/patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and has demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction. This acceptability study aims to evaluate a patient portal, based on Opal, and its potential acceptability in the context of HIV care. People living with HIV (PLWH) and their healthcare providers (HCPs) completed cross-sectional surveys from August 2019 to February 2020 at large HIV centers in Montreal (Canada), including the Chronic Viral Illness Service of the MUHC, the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Clinique Médicale du Quartier Latin, and Clinique Médicale l’Actuel and in Paris (France) Hôpital Saint-Antoine. This study included 114 PLWH (mean age 48 years old, SD=12.4), including 84 (74%) men, 27 (24%) women, and 2 (2%) transgender or identified as other; and 31 HCPs (mean age 46.5 years old, SD=11.4), including 10 (32%) men, 20 (65%) women and 1 (3%) identified as other. Ownership of smartphones or tablets was high (106 (93%) PLWH, 30 (96%) HCPs), and participants were willing to use a patient portal (84 (74%) PLWH, 21 (68%) HCPs). Participants were interested in most patient portal functions and PROMs; particularly PROMs capturing quality of life (101 (89%) PLWH, 24 (77%) HCPs), experience of healthcare (98 (86%) PLWH, 30 (97%) HCPs), and HIV self-management (105 (92%) PLWH, 30 (97%) HCPs). Random forest analysis demonstrated high variable importance of the variables gender, income, and comfort accessing personal health information as predictors of willingness to use a patient portal. This descriptive cross-sectional survey study suggests considerable acceptability of introducing a patient portal for PLWH and their HCPs
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".