MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561211740 · doi:10.1111/jep.12423

Contribution of treatment acceptability to acceptance of randomization: an exploration

2015· article· en· W1561211740 on OpenAlexaff
Souraya Sidani, Mary Fox, Dana R. Epstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsRandomizationRandomized controlled trialMedicineClinical psychologyAcceptance and commitment therapyClinical trialInsomniaPsychiatryIntervention (counseling)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Randomization to treatment is viewed unfavourably by many trial participants. There is limited research that investigated factors contributing to acceptance of randomization. This study explored the influence of participants' socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, and their perceived acceptability of the treatments on their acceptance of randomization (i.e. willingness to be randomized) in a clinical trial. METHODS: Persons with insomnia (n = 383) were asked about their acceptance of randomization before and after they rated the acceptability of behavioural therapies for managing insomnia (sleep education and hygiene booklet, stimulus control therapy and sleep restriction therapy). Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, and treatment acceptability, were measured with established instruments. Logistic regression was applied to explore the association between participants' characteristics and treatment acceptability, and reported acceptance of randomization. RESULTS: Prior to rating treatments' acceptability, 54.6% of participants were willing to be randomized; socio-demographic (age and ethnicity) and clinical (severity of insomnia's impact, state anxiety, depression, vitality and mental and social functions) contributed to acceptance of randomization. After rating the treatments' acceptability, 87.8% of participants were unwilling to be randomized; age, severity of insomnia's impact and acceptability of behavioural therapy were significantly associated with acceptance of randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicated that participants are likely to express unwillingness to be randomized once they receive treatment information and rate the acceptability of treatments. The reported non-acceptance may influence participants' behaviour (e.g. withdrawal, non-adherence) during the trial, suggesting the need to explore alternative designs for intervention evaluation.

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)0.332
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.598
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3320.598
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.330 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207