MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997691901 · doi:10.1177/1740774512460144

Efficiency of using community organisations as catalysts for recruitment to continence promotion trials

2012· article· en· W1997691901 on OpenAlexafffund
Rona Agnew, Eleanor van den Heuvel, Cara Tannenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionUrinary incontinencePromotion (chess)Cluster randomised controlled trialFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Health promotionClinical trialPhysical therapyInclusion (mineral)GerontologyNursingPublic healthPsychologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A major challenge for determining the effectiveness of community-based continence promotion campaigns is recruitment of a representative sample of incontinent participants who have not previously sought care. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficiency of engaging community organisations as catalysts for recruitment of community-dwelling older women with incontinence to the 'Continence across Continents' randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Seniors' and women's community-based organisations throughout the United Kingdom were solicited by telephone or email to assist recruitment for an open-label cluster randomised controlled trial testing three experimental continence promotion interventions and a control intervention for incontinent older women. Women aged 60 years and older who experienced at least weekly urinary incontinence and who had never sought treatment were eligible to participate. The response rate of the organisations and enrolment rate of eligible participants attending the continence promotion workshops were recorded. Differences in recruitment efficiency by intervention group were ascertained using analysis of variance statistics. RESULTS: We contacted 408 community organisations over a 1-year period. Seventy organisations (17%) agreed to host a workshop, 249 (61%) did not provide a response, and 89 (22%) refused. Workshops were administered in a group format to 61 organisations (15%); 667 women attended, 583 (87%) submitted the screening questionnaire, and 437 (66%) met eligibility criteria for inclusion. A total of 192 women consented to participate in the trial, yielding a 44% recruitment efficiency among workshop attendees known to be eligible, with no significant difference in enrolment rates between groups. However, the mean participant recruitment rate per number of attendees at each workshop was only 29%, varying substantially between groups from 19% to 37%, with the lowest rate observed for the control group. The mean annual recruitment rate expressed as the number of enrolled participants per community organisation contacted was 0.5. LIMITATIONS: Reasons for women's non-response were not collected. The findings may be country specific. CONCLUSIONS: The recruitment rate for a continence promotion trial among older women known to be eligible and attending workshops hosted by local community organisations was high (44%). Strategies are needed to bolster community organisations' involvement in health promotion trials in general and for continence issues in particular.

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 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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.160
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.160
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.775
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.163 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TrialsSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207