MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461516439 · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2016.06.010

A multi-modal intervention for Activating Patients at Risk for Osteoporosis (APROPOS): Rationale, design, and uptake of online study intervention material

2016· article· en· W2461516439 on OpenAlexafffund
Maria I. Danila, Ryan C. Outman, Elizabeth J. Rahn, Amy S. Mudano, Tammi F. Thomas, David T. Redden, Jeroan J. Allison, Fred Anderson, Julia Anderson, Peter Cram, Jeffrey R. Curtis, Liana Fraenkel, Susan L. Greenspan, Andrea Z. LaCroix, Sumit R. Majumdar, Michael J. Miller, Jeri W. Nieves, Monika M. Safford, Stuart L. Silverman, Ethel S. Siris, Daniel H. Solomon, Amy H. Warriner, Nelson B. Watts, Robert A. Yood, Kenneth G. Saag

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute on AgingUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)OsteoporosisMedicineEthnic groupPhysical therapyPatient educationFamily medicineGerontologyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop an innovative and effective educational intervention to inform patients about the need for osteoporosis treatment and to determine factors associated with its online uptake. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with a prior fracture and not currently using osteoporosis therapy were eligible to be included in the Activating Patients at Risk for OsteoPOroSis (APROPOS). Four nominal groups with a total of 18 racially/ethnically diverse women identified osteoporosis treatment barriers. We used the Information, Motivation, Behavior Skills conceptual model to develop a direct-to-patient intervention to mitigate potentially modifiable barriers to osteoporosis therapy. The intervention included videos tailored by participants' race/ethnicity and their survey responses: ranked barriers to osteoporosis treatment, deduced barriers to treatment, readiness to behavior change, and osteoporosis treatment history. Videos consisted of "storytelling" narratives, based on osteoporosis patient experiences and portrayed by actresses of patient-identified race/ethnicity. We also delivered personalized brief phone calls followed by an interactive voice-response phone messages aimed to promote uptake of the videos. RESULTS: To address the factors associated with online intervention uptake, we focused on participants assigned to the intervention arm (n = 1342). These participants were 92.9% Caucasian, with a mean (SD) age 74.9 (8.0) years and the majority (77.7%) had some college education. Preference for natural treatments was the barrier ranked #1 by most (n = 130; 27%), while concern about osteonecrosis of the jaw was the most frequently reported barrier (at any level; n = 322; 67%). Overall, 28.1% (n = 377) of participants in the intervention group accessed the videos online. After adjusting for relevant covariates, the participants who provided an email address had 6.07 (95% CI 4.53-8.14) higher adjusted odds of accessing their online videos compared to those who did not. CONCLUSION: We developed and implemented a novel tailored multi-modal intervention to improve initiation of osteoporosis therapy. An email address provided on the survey was the most important factor independently associated with accessing the intervention online. The design and uptake of this intervention may have implications for future studies in osteoporosis or other chronic diseases.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.463
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.069 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Clinical Trials CommunicationsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207