Trauma-informed interventions versus control for cancer-risk behaviours among adults: rationale and design for a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco use, alcohol use, and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption are each associated with increased cancer-risk. Psychological trauma is a common experience and a key driver of these behaviours among adults. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of trauma-informed yoga, drumming, and psychoeducation compared to control on tobacco use, alcohol use, and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among community-based adults. Secondary aims are to evaluate the effect of these interventions compared to control on psychological and physiological stress symptomology, social connection, and coping behaviour. METHODS: Recruitment for this single-blinded randomized trial began in April 2019 in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Lethbridge. Adults who consumed tobacco, alcohol, or sugar-sweetened beverages in the past month and live in Lethbridge, Alberta are being recruited using ads placed in public spaces. Participants are randomly allocated to a 12-session group yoga class, 12-session group drumming class, a 12-session psychoeducation class, or control. Participants attend an appointment in-person to fill out an online questionnaire package, provide a saliva sample, and complete physical measures pre-intervention, and 1-month and 6-months post-intervention. DISCUSSION: This study provides a unique opportunity to compare the impacts of two trauma-informed body-based interventions to psychoeducation and control for cancer-risk behaviour among community-based adults. The findings can be used to develop trauma-informed group interventions to reduce cancer-risk behaviour in general populations. Results are expected in 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN15583681 on 22 August 2019 (retrospectively registered).
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 | 0.066 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".