The use of information and communication technologies by arthritis health professionals to disseminate a self-management program to patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial protocol
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design and objective: This paper describes the protocol for a three-arm, single-blind, parallel design randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the perceived usability of Facebook to share information from an evidence-based arthritis self-management program with patients compared with email or an educational website after two weeks. Study population Three-hundred and twenty-seven arthritis health professionals (i.e., nurses or physical/occupational therapists) registered with their regulatory body in Canada, currently practicing clinically defined as spending a minimum of 50% of their time (working week) in direct arthritis patient care. Interventions The proposed RCT will include three information and communication technology (ICT) intervention groups: Facebook, email, and an educational website. Outcome measures The primary outcome will be perceived usefulness by health professionals of using the ICT intervention to share information with their patients according to the technology acceptance model 2 (TAM2) questionnaire at two weeks post-intervention. Secondary outcomes will include other usability domains of the TAM2 questionnaire (i.e., perceived ease of use, result demonstrability, output quality, job relevance, image, voluntariness, subjective norm, and intention to use) at two weeks, three months, and six months post-intervention. Analysis: An analysis of variance will be conducted to compare TAM2 questionnaire scores of the Facebook group with the email and educational website groups.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it