Methods Used to Maximize Follow-Up: Lessons Learned From the Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Trials*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe telephone interview completion rates among 12-month cardiac arrest survivors enrolled in the Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest In-Hospital and Out-of-Hospital trials, identify key characteristics of the completed follow-up interviews at both 3- and 12-month postcardiac arrest, and describe strategies implemented to promote follow-up. SETTING: Centralized telephone follow-up interviews. DESIGN: Retrospective report of data collected for Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest trials, and summary of strategies used to maximize follow-up completion. PATIENTS: Twelve-month survivors (n = 251) from 39 Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest PICU sites in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 3- and 12-month telephone interviews included completion of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition data were available on 96% of 3-month survivors (242/251) and 95% of 12-month survivors (239/251) with no differences in demographics between those with and without completed Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition. At 12 months, a substantial minority of interviews were completed with caregivers other than parents (10%), after calls attempts were made on 6 or more days (18%), and during evenings/weekends (17%). Strategies included emphasizing the relationship between study teams and participants, ongoing communication between study team members across sites, promoting site engagement during the study's final year, and withholding payment for work associated with the primary outcome until work had been completed. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to use telephone follow-up interviews to successfully collect detailed neurobehavioral outcome about children following pediatric cardiac arrest. Future studies should consider availability of the telephone interviewer to conduct calls at times convenient for families, using a range of respondents, ongoing engagement with site teams, and site payment related to primary outcome completion.
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 | 0.470 | 0.454 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".