MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888978514 · doi:10.2196/10360

A Digital Health App to Assess Decisional Capacity to Provide Informed Consent: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2018· article· en· W2888978514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Furberg, Melissa Raspa, Anne Wheeler, Lauren McCormack, Donald B. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsInformed consentRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)Decision aidsPsychologyData collectionApplied psychologyProcess (computing)Medical educationMedicineComputer scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Any study with human subjects must have a robust consent process to ensure that participants understand the study and can decide whether they want to be involved. Investigators must determine whether a potential study participant is able to make an informed decision and what modifications or supports are needed to maximize participation in decision making. A variety of approaches have been used to modify consent forms and the consent process to increase the research participants' decisional capacity. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a digital health app to support decision making among individuals contemplating providing consent to participate in a clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this RCT will be to determine if the use of a tablet-based app facilitates greater participation in and satisfaction with the consent process compared with standard practice and identify which individual factors are associated with better response to the decision aid. We hypothesize that the tablet-based version of the consent process will promote more informed decision making, including decisions that are more consistent with individual preferences and values expressed during qualitative data collection. METHODS: A two-arm RCT will be conducted in a sample of approximately 100 individuals with fragile X syndrome in their homes across the United States. RESULTS: Data analysis will be completed by late 2018. CONCLUSIONS: By developing and testing a novel consent decision aid, we will have a better understanding of whether and how technological support can optimize the fit between the decisional capacity and the decisional process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02465931; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02465931 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72Q3xJQAw). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/10360.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1300.022

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 head0.815
GPT teacher head0.747
Teacher spread0.068 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207