MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793215123 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2468-z

Text4Heart II – improving medication adherence in people with heart disease: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2018· article· en· W2793215123 on OpenAlexaff
Ralph Maddison, Ralph Stewart, Robert N. Doughty, Tony Scott, Andrew Kerr, Jocelyne Benatar, Robyn Whittaker, Jonathan C Rawstorn, Anna Rolleston, Yannan Jiang, Paul A. Estabrooks, R. Sullivan, Hannah Bartley, Leila Pfaeffli Dale

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesHealth Research Council of New ZealandNational Heart Foundation of New Zealand
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialmHealthAcute coronary syndromePhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Disease managementSelf-managementFamily medicineDiseasePsychological interventionMyocardial infarctionNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an essential component of contemporary management for patients with coronary heart disease, including following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). CR typically involves education and support to assist people following an ACS to make lifestyle changes and prevent subsequent events. Despite its benefits, uptake and participation in tradition CR programs is low. The use of mobile technologies (mHealth) offers the potential to improve reach, access, and delivery of CR support. We aim to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a text-messaging intervention (Text4Heart II) to improve adherence to medication and lifestyle change in addition to usual care in people following an ACS. A second aim is to use the RE-AIM framework to inform the potential implementation of Text4Heart II within health services in New Zealand. METHODS: Text4Heart II is a two-arm, parallel, superiority randomized controlled trial conducted in two large metropolitan hospitals in Auckland, New Zealand. Three hundred and thirty participants will be randomized to either a 24-week theory- and evidence-based personalized text message program to support self-management in addition to usual CR, or usual CR alone (control). Outcomes are assessed at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants adhering to medication at 6 months as measured by dispensed records. Secondary outcomes include medication adherence at 12 months, the proportion of participants adhering to self-reported healthy behaviors (physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, moderating alcohol intake and smoking status) measured using a composite health behavior score, self-reported medication adherence, cardiovascular risk factors (lipids, blood pressure), readmissions and related hospital events at 6 and 12 months. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be conducted. Using the RE-AIM framework, we will determine uptake and sustainability of the intervention. DISCUSSION: The Text4Heart II trial will determine the effectiveness of a text-messaging intervention to improve adherence to medication and lifestyle behaviors at both 6 and 12 months. Using the RE-AIM framework this trial will provide much needed data and insight into the potential implementation of Text4Heart II. This trial addresses many limitations/criticisms of previous mHealth trials; it builds on our Text4Heart pilot trial, it is adequately powered, has sufficient duration to elicit behavior change, and the follow-up assessments (6 and 12 months) are long enough to determine the sustained effect of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ID: ACTRN12616000422426 . Registered retrospectively on 1 April 2016.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.016

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.400 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207