MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Feasibility Study Of a Randomized Control Trial To Evaluate An Internet-Based Self-Management Program For Adolescents With Hemophilia

2013· article· en· W2979857657 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vicky R. Breakey, Danial M. Ignas, Ashley Warias, Meghan White, Victor S. Blanchette, Jennifer Stinson

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAttritionMedicineCoachingPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Family medicinePsychologyNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction As adolescents with hemophilia approach adulthood, they must assume responsibility for their health and management of their disease. An online self-management program was developed to support adolescents during this transition. Aim To determine the feasibility of studying the online educational program using a non-blind, randomized control trial(RCT) design in terms of 1)Study accrual and attrition rates, 2) willingness to be randomized 3) compliance with the program and completion of the outcome measures, and 4) satisfaction with the program. Methods Adolescents, ages 13-18, were enrolled from three tertiary care centres in Canada in a pilot RCT (NCT01477437). After providing informed consent, adolescents were randomized to the intervention (8 week program with telephone coaching) or the control arm (no access, weekly telephone call as attention-strategy). Adolescents in both arms of the study were asked to complete pre- and post- outcome measures. Following completion of the program, quantitative analysis addressed the feasilibity measures and qualitative interviews were conducted to assess satisfaction. Results 29 teens participated (intervention group, n=16, control group, n=13).Participants in the intervention arm spent an average of 50 minutes on the website per week completed the 8 modules in an average of 14 weeks (SD= 4.9). Among those randomized to the intervention, 2 participants dropped out of the study and 2 were lost to follow-up, resulting in an attrition rate of 25% (4/16). The control arm had a higher attrition rate of 54% (7/13) with 5 participants being lost to follow-up and 2 participants dropping out. For participants who completed the program, 17/18 (94%) completed the post-study outcome measures. Despite the study not being powered to assess efficacy, teens on the intervention arm showed significant improvement in disease-specific knowledge (p=0.004), self-efficacy (p=0.007) and transition preparedness (p=0.046) over time. There was a statistically significant improvement in the knowledge measure in the intervention group when compared to the control group (p=0.01). Overall, the teens found the website to be informative, comprehensive and easy to use and were satisfied with the program. Conclusions This feasibility study suggests benefit to the program and indicates a full scale RCT to be a reasonable next step with minor adjustments to the protocol. The higher than expected attrition rate in the control group, suggests the need to improve the strategies for maintaining participant engagement using a more active attention control group (static educational materials) in the design of this web-based intervention prior to a larger study to assess efficacy. Disclosures: Breakey: Baxter Bioscience: Research Funding.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207