MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Challenges of Recruitment of Breast Cancer Survivors to a Randomized Clinical Trial for Osteoporosis Prevention

2006· article· en· W2106218371 on OpenAlexaff
Carol D. Ott, Janice J. Twiss, Nancy Waltman, Gloria J. Gross, Ada M. Lindsey

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
FundersNational Institute of Nursing Research
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialBreast cancerAccrualPsychological interventionPhysical therapyFamily medicineGerontologyOsteoporosisClinical endpointNursingInternal medicineCancerFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recruitment of participants was a challenging issue for a statewide, 4-site, randomized, longitudinal trial for osteoporosis prevention. The accrual goal was 273 healthy breast cancer survivors. This federally funded study included a home-based followed by a fitness center-based 24-month intervention with follow-up at 36 months. In this report, recruitment planning, monitoring, and modifications are described, and the cost per enrolled participant is identified. Monthly monitoring of accrual numbers per recruitment strategy at each of 4 catchment areas allowed for early identification of necessary changes in recruitment strategies. Modifications were necessary when only 39% of the overall accrual goal had been attained at the 66% time point into the 18-month recruitment phase. Successful recruitment strategies were intensified, and new strategies were implemented, addressing motivators and deterrents for participation in clinical trials. Because approximately 81% of women were demonstrating bone loss via free dual energy x-ray absorptiometry screening, prevalence of the bone loss problem in survivors was incorporated into the recruitment information. Of 708 women screened via telephone and laboratory/dual energy x-ray absorptiometry testing, 249 were enrolled with 67% at 2 metropolitan sites and 33% at 2 rural sites. Recruitment media costs were approximately US$35 per enrolled participant. When combined with skeletal and laboratory screening, costs were approximately US$480 per enrolled participant. Tracking recruitment efforts in large clinical trials should be ongoing, site-specific, and cost-effective. Changes incorporated early in the recruitment phase addressed unique aspects of rural versus metropolitan areas and resulted in near achievement of accrual goals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations38
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer NursingSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207