‘Thinking that somebody's going to delay [a tonsillectomy] for one to two years is quite horrifying really’: a qualitative feasibility study for the NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults (NATTINA Part 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Level one evidence on the value of adult tonsillectomy versus non-surgical management remains scarce. Before embarking on a costly national randomised controlled trial, it is essential to establish its feasibility. DESIGN: Feasibility study with in-depth qualitative and cognitive interviews. SETTING: ENT staff and patients were recruited from nine hospital centres across England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were referred for tonsillectomy (n = 15), a convenience sample of general practitioners (n = 11) and ear, nose and throat staff (n = 22). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To ascertain whether ear, nose and throat staff would be willing to randomise patients to the treatment arms. To assess general practitioners' willingness to refer patients to the NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults (NATTINA) centres. To assess patients' willingness to be randomised and the acceptability of the deferred surgery treatment arm. To ascertain whether the study could progress to the pilot trial stage. RESULTS: Ear, nose and throat staff and general practitioners were willing to randomise patients to the proposed NATTINA. Not all ENT staff were in equipoise concerning the treatment pathways. Patients were reluctant to be randomised into the deferred surgery group if they had already waited a substantial time before being referred. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the NATTINA may not be feasible. Proposed methods could not be realistically assessed without a pilot trial. Due to the importance of the question, as evidenced by NATTINA clinicians, and strong support from ENT staff, the pilot trial proceeded, with modifications.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".