Response to direct and indirect recruitment for a randomised dental clinical trial in a multicultural population of elders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recruitment for randomised clinical trials and community-based studies has received little attention in the dental literature. The goal of this study was to report on our experiences with direct and indirect recruitment methods for a trial to prevent tooth loss in elders. METHODS: A direct approach, consisting of an introductory lecture with the help of a local contact person in each of the nine community centres, resulted in 208 recruits mostly from minority non-English speaking communities (52%), whereas the other 192 recruits who responded to newspaper announcements (48%) were, in large part, from the English-speaking community. RESULTS: The response suggests that a more direct and culturally specific approach is more productive when recruiting elders from ethnic minority groups, whereas elders from the dominant culture can be recruited indirectly and for about half the financial cost through newspaper announcements. CONCLUSION: We conclude, therefore, that both direct and indirect methods are needed to recruit a multiethnic sample of subjects for a trial.
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 | 0.031 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".