Assessing the acceptability and efficacy of teens taking charge: Transplant—A pilot randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents who have undergone SOT are at heightened risk for graft failure. This pilot randomized controlled trial aimed to determine the feasibility and obtain preliminary estimates of efficacy of the online TTC program. METHODS: TTC is a web-based self-management program for adolescent SOT patients. Participants-kidney or liver transplant candidates or recipients-were enrolled over a 2-year period and randomized to either an intervention group that accessed TTC or a control group that did not access the program. Outcome measures included feasibility, how much the program was utilized, and pre- and post-intervention health-related outcomes evaluating self-management, self-efficacy, mood, use of healthcare services, and knowledge. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants post-intervention. RESULTS: Forty-two participants were enrolled in the study. Participants in the intervention group expressed that they enjoyed learning about other teens' experiences, but reported barriers to accessing the site, such as being too busy, computer being too slow, and not being able to access the site on their mobile device. Time spent using the website was low for the majority of participants. Patients less than 1-year post-transplant accessed TTC more than patients who had their transplant for longer. No significant differences were found for health-related outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in health-related outcomes were found between groups. Further studies that examine barriers to engagement with web-based education tools are warranted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".