Effectiveness of an electronic patient-centred self-management tool for gout sufferers: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gout is increasing despite effective therapies to lower serum urate concentrations to 0.36 mmol/L or less, which, if sustained, significantly reduces acute attacks of gout. Adherence to urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is poor, with rates of less than 50% 1 year after initiation of ULT. Attempts to increase adherence in gout patients have been disappointing. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of use of a personal, self-management, 'smartphone' application (app) to achieve target serum urate concentrations in people with gout. We hypothesise that personalised feedback of serum urate concentrations will improve adherence to ULT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Setting and designPrimary care. A prospective, cluster randomised (by general practitioner (GP) practices), controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: GP practices will be randomised to either intervention or control clusters with their patients allocated to the same cluster. INTERVENTION: The intervention group will have access to the Healthy.me app tailored for the self-management of gout. The control group patients will have access to the same app modified to remove all functions except the Gout Attack Diary. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The proportion of patients whose serum urate concentrations are less than or equal to 0.36 mmol/L after 6 months. Secondary outcomes will be proportions of patients achieving target urate concentrations at 12 months, ULT adherence rates, serum urate concentrations at 6 and 12 months, rates of attacks of gout, quality of life estimations and process and economic evaluations. The study is designed to detect a ≥30% improvement in the intervention group above the expected 50% achievement of target serum urate at 6 months in the control group: power 0.80, significance level 0.05, assumed 'dropout' rate 20%. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee. Study findings will be disseminated in international conferences and peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12616000455460.
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 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.006 |
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".