MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3162047426 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043918

Brief interventions for older adults (BIO) delivered by non-specialist community health workers to reduce at-risk drinking in primary care: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3162047426 on OpenAlexaff
Tassiane Cristine Santos de Paula, Camila Chagas, Ana Regina Noto, Maria Lúcia Oliveira de Souza Formigoni, Tiago Pereira, Cleusa P. Ferri

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoAgence Nationale de la RechercheFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloForeign and Commonwealth Office
KeywordsMedicineAlcohol Use Disorders Identification TestPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialInformed consentPublic healthFamily medicineAuditGerontologyNursingPoison controlEnvironmental healthInjury preventionAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Evidence suggests that brief interventions are effective in reducing alcohol consumption among older adults. However, the effectiveness of these interventions when delivered by community health workers (non-specialists) in a primary healthcare setting is unknown. To our knowledge, this will be the first randomised trial to examine this. Methods and analysis Two hundred and forty-two individuals considered at-risk drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption, AUDIT-C score ≥4) will be recruited and randomly allocated to usual care (waiting-list) or usual care plus an intervention delivered by trained community health workers (non-specialists). Seven primary care units (PCUs) in Sao José dos Campos, Brazil. PCUs are part of the Brazilian public healthcare system (Sistema Único de Saúde). Follow-up 6 months. Outcomes The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants considered at-risk drinkers (AUDIT-C score ≥4). Secondary outcomes will include alcohol consumption in a typical week in the last 30 days (in units per week) assessed by the AUDIT, service use questionnaire, cognitive performance—assessed by The Health and Retirement Study Harmonised Cognitive Assessment, physical activity—assessed by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, depression—assessed by the Geriatric Depression Scale and quality of life—assessed by the Control, Autonomy, Self-realisation and Pleasure-16 instrument. The analysis will be based on intention-to-treat principle. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidade Federal de São Paulo, CEP/UNIFESP Project n: 0690/2018; CAAE: 91648618.0.0000.5505. All eligible participants will provide informed consent prior to randomisation. The results of this study will be published in relevant peer-reviewed journals and in conference presentations. Trial registration number RBR-8rcxkk.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.008
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.012

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→