MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044207194 · doi:10.2196/20240

Closing the COVID-19 Psychological Treatment Gap for Cancer Patients in Alberta: Protocol for the Implementation and Evaluation of Text4Hope-Cancer Care

2020· article· en· W3044207194 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Vincent I. O. Agyapong, Marianne Hrabok, Reham Shalaby, Kelly Mrklas, Wesley Vuong, April Gusnowski, Shireen Surood, Andrew J. Greenshaw, Nnamdi Nkire

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
FundersAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Cancer FoundationRoyal Alexandra Hospital FoundationChildren's Hospital FoundationAlberta Health Services
KeywordsAnxietyPopulationMedicineDepression (economics)CancerPsychological interventionHospital Anxiety and Depression ScalePsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cancer diagnoses and treatments usually engender significant anxiety and depressive symptoms in patients, close relatives, and caregivers. Providing psychological support during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic presents additional challenges due to self-isolation and social or physical distancing measures in place to limit viral spread. This protocol describes the use of text messaging (Text4Hope-Cancer Care) as a convenient, cost-effective, and accessible population-level mental health intervention. As demonstrated in previous research, this evidence-based program supports good outcomes and high user satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: We will implement daily supportive text messaging as a way of reducing and managing anxiety and depression related to cancer diagnosis and treatment in Alberta, Canada. Prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms, their demographic correlates, and Text4Hope-Cancer Care-induced changes in anxiety and depression will be evaluated. METHODS: Alberta residents with a cancer diagnosis and the close relatives of those dealing with a cancer diagnosis can self-subscribe to the Text4Hope-Cancer Care program by texting "CancerCare" to a dedicated text number. Self-administered, anonymous, online questionnaires will be used to assess anxiety and depressive symptoms using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Data will be collected at onset from individuals receiving text messages, and at the mid- and endpoints of the program (ie, at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively). Data will be analyzed with parametric and nonparametric statistics for primary outcomes (ie, anxiety and depressive symptoms) and usage metrics, including the number of subscribers and user satisfaction. In addition, data mining and machine learning analysis will focus on determining subscriber characteristics that predict high levels of symptoms of mental disorders, and may subsequently predict changes in those measures in response to the Text4Hope-Cancer Care program. RESULTS: The first research stage, which was completed in April 2020, involved the creation and review of the supportive text messages and uploading of messages into a web-based text messaging service. The second stage, involving the launch of the Text4Hope-Cancer Care program, occurred in May 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Text4Hope-Cancer Care has the potential to provide key information regarding the prevalence rates of anxiety and depressive symptoms in patients diagnosed or receiving care for cancer and their caregivers. The study will generate demographic correlates of anxiety and depression, and outcome data related to this scalable, population-level intervention. Information from this study will be valuable for health care practitioners working in cancer care and may help inform policy and decision making regarding psychological interventions for cancer care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/20240.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.610
GPT teacher head0.688
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207