Willingness to Participate in Clinical Research Among Individuals With Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This secondary analysis examined (1) factors associated with willingness to participate in clinical research for cognitive health among individuals with cognitive impairment and their care partners, and (2) concordance regarding such willingness between individuals with cognitive impairment and their care partners (dyads). Neuropsychological factors and willingness to participate in clinical research were collected using self-reported questionnaires. Participants' sociodemographic and clinical information was extracted from the University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer's Disease Research Center record. Binary logistic regression and Cohen's kappa coefficient analyses were performed. Greater trust in medical researchers ( p = 0.031, B = 0.127) and more severe cognitive impairment ( p = 0.009, B = −0.289) were associated with willingness to participate in clinical research among individuals with cognitive impairment. Dyadic agreement on willingness to have the individual with cognitive impairment enroll in clinical research was poor to fair (κ = 0.380). Findings suggest that individuals with cognitive impairment with greater trust in health professionals are more likely to agree to clinical research participation. Nurses and other health care providers who counsel individuals with cognitive impairment and their care partners should work to build trusting relationships with participants and be mindful of how increased trust can alter power dynamics between participants and health care professionals. [ Research in Gerontological Nursing, 15 (2), 76–84.]
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 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".