MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128756940 · doi:10.1177/1740774512449532

Evolution of the study coordinator role: The 28-year experience in Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC)

2012· article· en· W2128756940 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Larkin, Gayle M. Lorenzi, Meg Bayless, Patricia A. Cleary, Annette Barnie, E. Golden, Susan Hitt, Saul Genuth

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionDiabetes mellitusType 1 diabetesFamily medicineEpidemiologyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The role of the study coordinator (SC) in multicenter studies of long duration has received limited attention. PURPOSE: To describe the evolution of the SC's role during the 28-year Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and its follow-up study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study. METHODS: The evolution of the SC's position from the traditional role of protocol implementation to that of research collaborator and co-investigator, based on personal experience and observation, is described in detail. Findings from a survey regarding professional demographics and job satisfaction, completed by all 28 SCs in 2010, provided additional information. We used dimensions of the SC's role specific to DCCT/EDIC to construct a classification schema of functions and responsibilities that describe the SC's role. RESULTS: Among the 28 SCs, 24 were nurses, 12 held bachelor's degrees, 11 had a master's degree, 19 were certified diabetes educators (CDEs), 12 had worked with DCCT/EDIC for more than 20 years, and 5 had been with the study since its inception (>26 years). Responses confirmed a high degree of functional consistency across sites with data acquisition, performing study procedures, recruitment and consent for additional ancillary studies, regulatory management, scheduling, clinical consultation, and ongoing contact with study participants frequently reported. Study-wide leadership activities, a category not generally included in the usual SC role, were reported by approximately 30% of the SCs. The level of professional satisfaction was high with two-thirds being very satisfied, one-third moderately to quite satisfied, and none dissatisfied. LIMITATIONS: The limitations include a relatively small sample size, self-reported data, and a single long-term multicenter trial and observational follow-up study on which we based our findings and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: By optimizing their organizational and scientific contributions to the overall research endeavor, SCs in DCCT/EDIC have made major contributions to the unprecedented success of the study and report high job satisfaction. The efforts of the SCs have been integral to the remarkably high participant retention and data completion rates. The DCCT/EDIC experience may serve as a model for the role of the SC in future diabetes and other multicenter clinical trials.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.850
GPT teacher head0.741
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TrialsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207