MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016707603 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-223

The protocol for the Families First Edmonton trial (FFE): a randomized community-based trial to compare four service integration approaches for families with low-income

2014· article· en· W2016707603 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jane Drummond, Laurie Schnirer, Sylvia So, Maria Mayan, Deanna L. Williamson, Jeffrey Bisanz, Konrad Fassbender, Natasha Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleEdmonton Community FoundationCanadian Health Services Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineMental healthPublic healthRecreationNursingService (business)Government (linguistics)Randomized controlled trialNursing researchFamily medicineGerontologyPsychiatryMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Families with low incomes experience an array of health and social challenges that compromise their resilience and lead to negative family outcomes. Along with financial constraints, there are barriers associated with mental and physical health, poorer education and language. In addition, vulnerable populations experience many services as markedly unhelpful. This combination of family and service barriers results in reduced opportunities for effective, primary-level services and an increased use of more expensive secondary-level services (e.g., emergency room visits, child apprehensions, police involvement). A systematic review of effective interventions demonstrated that promotion of physical and mental health using existing service was critically important. METHODS/DESIGN: The Families First Edmonton Trial (FFE) tests four service integration approaches to increase use of available health and social services for families with low-income. It is a randomized, two-factor, single-blind, longitudinal effectiveness trial where low-income families (1168) were randomly assigned to receive either (1) Family Healthy Lifestyle plus Family Recreation service integration (Comprehensive), (2) Family Healthy Lifestyle service integration, (3) Family Recreation service integration, or (4) existing services. To be eligible families needed to be receiving one of five government income assistance programs. The trial was conducted in the City of Edmonton between January 2006 and August 2011. The families were followed for a total of three years of which interventional services were received for between 18 and 24 months. The primary outcome is the number of family linkages to health and social services as measured by a customized survey tool "Family Services Inventory". Secondary outcomes include type and satisfaction with services, cost of services, family member health, and family functioning. Where possible, the measures for secondary outcomes were selected because of their standardization, the presence of published norming data, and their utility as comparators to other studies of low-income families. As an effectiveness trial, community and government partners participated in all committees through a mutually agreed upon governance model and helped manage and problem solve with researchers. DISCUSSION: Modifications were made to the FFE trial based on the pragmatics of community-based trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00705328.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.009

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207