MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516908816 · doi:10.1177/1740774516665596

Communicating with participants during the conduct of multi-center clinical trials

2016· article· en· W2516908816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erika F. Augustine, E. Ray Dorsey, Robert A. Hauser, Jordan J. Elm, Barbara C. Tilley, Karl Kieburtz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeUniversity of RochesterNew York State Department of Health
KeywordsCenter (category theory)Clinical trialPsychologyMedicineFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Communicating with trial participants is an important aspect of study conduct, relevant for informed consent and respect for participants. Group teleconferences are one means to convey information to trial participants. We used group teleconferences during an ongoing large-scale clinical trial to communicate important trial updates. METHODS: The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Exploratory Trials in Parkinson's Disease Longitudinal Study-1 trial studied creatine for treatment of early-stage Parkinson's disease. A total of 1741 participants enrolled at 45 sites in the United States and Canada to take part in a double-blind randomized trial of 5 years of treatment with creatine versus placebo. The study leadership held two teleconferences with study participants and their caregivers after each of two pre-specified interim analyses, for a total of four teleconferences. Each agenda included a presentation by study leadership followed by an open question and answer period. Teleconference recordings were made available to all site personnel and trial participants. Recordings were reviewed and abstracted for themes and topics of the presentations, participant questions, and discussion. Number of participants, connection time for each participant, number of questions, and caller connection time were summarized using descriptive statistics. After the first teleconferences, participants who remained on the call until the end were invited to complete a voluntary, four-question survey about the teleconference process. During the second teleconferences, participants were notified of premature study closure. RESULTS: There were 258 callers for the first pair of teleconferences and 604 callers for the second pair of teleconferences. Study leaders answered more than 110 questions from study participants and caregivers across all calls. The most frequently asked question themes related to study drug, Parkinson's disease, side effects, future research, and data analysis. The initial teleconferences were well received by participants. Based on responses to the post-call survey, 98% (118/121) of participants found the call useful, 91% (115/127) were interested in future similar calls, 88% stated the call made them more likely to continue in the study (112/128), and 85% (90/106) were satisfied overall with study communications. CONCLUSION: Teleconferences provide a convenient way to communicate with trial participants and can be used during the conduct of clinical trials to convey study progress and other information. For multi-site trials, teleconferences enable participants to engage directly with study leadership and to ask questions. Survey respondents were highly satisfied with the group teleconference experience. Future research is needed to determine whether teleconferences improve participants' satisfaction with clinical trial participation and improve retention.

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)0.479
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.566
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4790.566
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.010

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 head0.976
GPT teacher head0.779
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TrialsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207