MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123316530 · doi:10.2196/resprot.4268

Effective Strategies to Recruit Young Adults Into the TXT2BFiT mHealth Randomized Controlled Trial for Weight Gain Prevention

2015· article· en· W2123316530 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie R. Partridge, Kate Balestracci, Annette Wong, Lana Hebden, Kevin McGeechan, Elizabeth Denney‐Wilson, Mark Harris, Philayrath Phongsavan, Adrian Bauman, Margaret Allman‐Farinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilAustralian Government
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicinemHealthPsychological interventionFamily medicineWaistRandomizationGerontologyObesityNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Younger adults are difficult to engage in preventive health, yet in Australia they are gaining more weight and increasing in waist circumference faster than middle-to-older adults. A further challenge to engaging 18- to 35-year-olds in interventions is the limited reporting of outcomes of recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the outcomes of strategies used to recruit young adults to a randomized controlled trial (RCT), healthy lifestyle mHealth program, TXT2BFiT, for prevention of weight gain. The progression from enquiry through eligibility check to randomization into the trial and the costs of recruitment strategies are reported. Factors associated with nonparticipation are explored. METHODS: Participants were recruited either via letters of invitation from general practitioners (GPs) or via electronic or print advertisements, including Facebook and Google-social media and advertising-university electronic newsletters, printed posters, mailbox drops, and newspapers. Participants recruited from GP invitation letters had an appointment booked with their GP for eligibility screening. Those recruited from other methods were sent an information pack to seek approval to participate from their own GP. The total number and source of enquiries were categorized according to eligibility and subsequent completion of steps to enrolment. Cost data and details of recruitment strategies were recorded. RESULTS: From 1181 enquiries in total from all strategies, 250 (21.17%) participants were randomized. A total of 5311 invitation letters were sent from 12 GP practices-16 participating GPs. A total of 131 patients enquired with 68 participants randomized (68/74 of those eligible, 92%). The other recruitment methods yielded the remaining 182 randomized participants. Enrolment from print media was 26% of enquiries, from electronic media was 20%, and from other methods was 3%. Across all strategies the average cost of recruitment was Australian Dollar (AUD) $139 per person. The least expensive modality was electronic (AUD $37), largely due to a free feature story on one university Web home page, despite Facebook advertising costing AUD $945 per enrolment. The most expensive was print media at AUD $213 and GP letters at AUD $145 per enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: The research indicated that free electronic media was the most cost-effective strategy, with GP letters the least expensive of the paid strategies in comparison to the other strategies. This study is an important contribution for future research into efficacy, translation, and implementation of cost-effective programs for the prevention of weight gain in young adults. Procedural frameworks for recruitment protocols are required, along with systematic reporting of recruitment strategies to reduce unnecessary expenditure and allow for valuable public health prevention programs to go beyond the research setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000924853; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=362872 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6YpNfv1gI).

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.270
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 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

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207