MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013308129 · doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04235-z

An international, Delphi consensus study to identify priorities for methodological research in behavioral trials in health research

2020· article· en· W3013308129 on OpenAlex
Molly Byrne, Jenny McSharry, Oonagh Meade, Kim Lavoie, Simon Bacon

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersInstitute of Population and Public HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchIreland Canada University FoundationFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsPsychological interventionDelphi methodIntervention (counseling)MedicinePopulationBehavioural sciencesResearch designApplied psychologyThematic analysisBehavior changeDelphiPsychologyQualitative researchEnvironmental healthNursingSocial psychologyComputer sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable chronic diseases are linked to behavioral risk factors (including smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity), so effective behavior change interventions are needed to improve population health. However, uptake and impact of these interventions is limited by methodological challenges. We aimed to identify and achieve consensus on priorities for methodological research in behavioral trials in health research among an international behavioral science community. METHODS: An international, Delphi consensus study was conducted. Fifteen core members of the International Behavioral Trials Network (IBTN) were invited to generate methodological items that they consider important. From these, the research team agreed a "long-list" of unique items. Two online surveys were administered to IBTN members (N = 306). Respondents rated the importance of items on a 9-point scale, and ranked their "top-five" priorities. In the second survey, respondents received feedback on others' responses, before rerating items and re-selecting their top five. RESULTS: Nine experts generated 144 items, which were condensed to a long-list of 33 items. The four most highly endorsed items, in both surveys 1 (n = 77) and 2 (n = 57), came from two thematic categories:"Intervention development" ("Specifying intervention components" and "Tailoring interventions to specific populations and contexts") and "Implementation" ("How to disseminate behavioral trial research findings to increase implementation" and "Methods for ensuring that behavioral interventions are implementable into practice and policy"). "Development of novel research designs to test behavioral interventions" also emerged as a highly ranked research priority. CONCLUSIONS: From a wide array of identified methodological issues, intervention development, implementation and novel research designs are key themes to drive the future behavioral trials' research agenda. Funding bodies should prioritize these issues in resource allocation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.625
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.321
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6250.321
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.984
GPT teacher head0.820
Teacher spread0.164 · 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