MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3197026612 · doi:10.2196/33047

Optimizing Coaching During Web-Based Relationship Education for Low-Income Couples: Protocol for Precision Medicine Research

2021· article· en· W3197026612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Hatch, Diana Lobaina, Brian D. Doss

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingAttritionGovernment (linguistics)Protocol (science)PsychologyWeb applicationRandomized controlled trialMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicineComputer scienceAlternative medicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In-person relationship education classes funded by the federal government tend to experience relatively high attrition rates and have only a limited effect on relationships. In contrast, low-income couples tend to report meaningful gains from web-based relationship education when provided with individualized coach contact. However, little is known about the method and intensity of practitioner contact that a couple requires to complete the web-based program and receive the intended benefit. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to use within-group models to create an algorithm to assign future couples to different programs and levels of coach contact, identify the most powerful predictors of treatment adherence and gains in relationship satisfaction within 3 different levels of coaching, and examine the most powerful predictors of treatment adherence and gains in relationship satisfaction among the 3 levels of coach contact. METHODS: To accomplish these goals, this project intends to use data from a web-based Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial of the OurRelationship and web-based Prevention and Relationship Enhancement programs, in which the method and type of coach contact were randomly varied across 1248 couples (2496 individuals), with the hope of advancing theory in this area and generating accurate predictions. This study was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (grant number 90PD0309). RESULTS: Data collection from the Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial of the OurRelationship and web-based Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program was completed in October of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the direct benefits of this study include benefits to social services program administrators, tailoring of more effective relationship education, and effective delivery of evidence- and web-based relationship health interventions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/33047.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.017

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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.663
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics→French-language works237,207→