Experimental (Re)structuring: The Clinical Trial as Turning Point Among Medical Research Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amid the growth of addiction medicine randomized controlled trials (RCTs), scholars have begun examining participants' study experiences, highlighting facilitators and barriers to enrollment. However, this work can overlook the interplay between trial participation and social-structural dimensions among people with substance use disorders linked to the social nature of use, socioeconomic marginalization, and time demands of substance procurement and use. To effectively conduct RCTs with this unique population, it is necessary to examine the broader social context of study participation. We conducted nested qualitative interviews with 22 participants involved in an RCT testing a treatment for alcohol and opioid use disorders in HIV clinics. Thematic analyses revealed social-structural circumstances shaping RCT participation as well as how participation constitutes a turning point, prompting individuals to reconfigure social networks, reorient to spatial environments, and reorganize day-to-day life-with implications for how substance use disorder RCTs should be approached by researchers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.187 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".