Internet-based Interacting Together Everyday, Recovery After Childhood TBI (I-InTERACT): Protocol for a multi-site randomized controlled trial of an internet-based parenting intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We discuss the rationale and description of the Internet-Based Interacting Together Everyday, Recovery After Childhood TBI (I-InTERACT), a telehealth intervention designed to promote positive parenting skills through live in-session skills practice and coaching. A second objective is to describe the protocol of a three-armed (Internet Resource Comparison, I-InTERACT, and I-InTERACT Express) multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to examine intervention effectiveness. METHOD: Participants included parents of children ages 3-9 who sustained a moderate or severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) any time since birth. Measures assessing parenting behaviors, parent-child interaction, parent/family factors, and child factors were collected prior to intervention, 3 months after enrollment and 6-months after enrollment. RESULTS: This protocol manuscript was submitted before the completion of data collection and prior to any data analysis. It is expected that the I-InTERACT and I-InTERACT Express interventions will be associated with an increase in positive parenting behaviors, and a decrease in negative parenting behaviors, parental distress, and child behavior problems. Finally it is expected that socioeconomic status, life stressors, and social resources will moderate treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: The study described in this protocol paper represents one of the first large multi-site RCTs of a parenting intervention designed to promote positive parenting skills in families with young children who sustained a TBI. We plan to disseminate findings to patients and families as well as clinical and research professionals, and begin to develop a research base for this telehealth intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.010 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".