Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computer-Based Education Program in the Home for Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: De novo solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) have a steep learning curve to acquire medication knowledge. Without adequate knowledge, SOTR are at risk of nonadherence and poor transplant outcomes. METHODS: In this nonblinded, randomized controlled trial, de novo SOTR received standard teaching with or without postdischarge computer-based education (CBE) at home. Primary outcomes were change in knowledge (quiz and recall) and satisfaction, assessed by questionnaires at baseline and 3 months. Adherence was evaluated via self-report and immunosuppressant levels. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six patients were randomized and 209 completed the 3-month analysis. In the intervention arm, 73 (57.9%) used the CBE program. Change in knowledge quiz score did not differ between groups (4.9% vs 0.6%; P = 0.084), despite a significant increase within the intervention (72.4% vs 77.3%, P = 0.007) but not the control (76.0% vs 76.6%, P = 0.726) arms. Both groups had a significant improvement in recall (intervention, 56.7% vs 82.1%, P < 0.001; control, 51.3% vs 79.7%, P < 0.001), with similar changes in scores (25.4% vs 28.4%, P = 0.55). Change in satisfaction differed between groups (intervention, 1.2% vs control, -4.9%; P = 0.050). There was a significant decline in satisfaction within the control group (88.4% vs 83.5%, P = 0.035), whereas satisfaction was maintained with the intervention (85.6% vs 86.8%, P = 0.55). Adherence was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge improved over the study period in both groups, with no incremental benefit for the intervention. Patient satisfaction was maintained with the CBE program. More research is needed to identify barriers to uptake of CBE at home and to develop effective strategies for posttransplant education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".