MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409274523 · doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0307-2

A cluster randomized trial of a transition intervention for adolescents with congenital heart disease: rationale and design of the CHAPTER 2 study

2016· article· en· W2409274523 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew S. Mackie, Gwen R. Rempel, Adrienne H. Kovacs, Miriam Kaufman, Kathryn N. Rankin, Ahlexxi Jelen, Cedric Manlhiot, Samantha J. Anthony, Joyce Magill‐Evans, David Nicholas, Renée Sananes, Erwin Oechslin, Dimi Dragieva, Sonila Mustafa, Elina Williams, Michelle Schuh, Brian W. McCrindle

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cardiovascular Disorders · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of CalgaryAthabasca UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAttendancePsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Heart diseasePopulationRandomized controlled trialAdult careClinical endpointAngiologyHealth carePhysical therapyPediatricsFamily medicineYoung adultInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The population of adolescents and young adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) is growing exponentially. These survivors are at risk of late cardiac complications and require lifelong cardiology care. However, there is a paucity of data on how to prepare adolescents to assume responsibility for their health and function within the adult health care system. Evidence-based transition strategies are required. METHODS: The Congenital Heart Adolescents Participating in Transition Evaluation Research (CHAPTER 2) Study is a two-site cluster randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-led transition intervention for 16-17 year olds with moderate or complex CHD. The primary endpoint is excess time to adult CHD care, defined as the time interval between the final pediatric cardiology appointment and the first adult CHD appointment, minus the recommended time interval between these appointments. Secondary endpoints include the MyHeart score (CHD knowledge), Transition Readiness Assessment Questionnaire score, and need for catheter or surgical re-intervention. Participants are enrolled in clusters based on week of attendance in the pediatric cardiology clinic. The intervention consists of two one-hour individualized sessions between a cardiology nurse and study participant. Session One focuses on knowledge of the participant's CHD, review of their cardiac anatomy and prior interventions, and potential late cardiac complications. Session Two focuses on self-management and communication skills through review and discussion of videos and role-play. The study will recruit 120 participants. DISCUSSION: Many adolescents and young adults experience a gap in care predisposing them to late cardiac complications. The CHAPTER 2 Study will investigate the impact of a nurse-led transition intervention among adolescents with CHD. Fidelity of the intervention is a major focus and priority. This study will build on our experience by (i) enrolling at two tertiary care programs, (ii) including a self-management intervention component, and (iii) evaluating the impact of the intervention on time to ACHD care, a clinically relevant outcome. The results of this study will inform pediatric cardiology programs, patients and policy makers in judging whether a structured intervention program provides clinically meaningful outcomes for adolescents and young adults living with CHD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01723332.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Cardiovascular DisordersSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207