MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281679380 · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100932

Including migrant oncology patients in research: A multisite pilot randomised controlled trial testing consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists

2022· article· en· W4281679380 on OpenAlexaff
Amelia Hyatt, Ruby Lipson‐Smith, Karla Gough, Phyllis Butow, Michael Jefford, Thomas F. Hack, Sandra Hale, Emiliano Zucchi, Shane White, Uldis Ozoliņš, Penelope Schofield

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionMedicineIntervention (counseling)Research designClinical trialMedical educationInclusion (mineral)Test (biology)Language barrierFamily medicinePsychologyNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Oncology patients who are migrants or refugees face worse outcomes due to language and communication barriers impacting care. Interventions such as consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists may prove beneficial in mediating communication challenges. However, designing robust research inclusive of patients who do not speak English is challenging. This study therefore aimed to: a) pilot test and assess the appropriateness of the proposed research design and methods for engaging migrant populations, and b) determine whether a multi-site RCT efficacy assessment of the communication intervention utilising these methods is feasible. Methods: This study is a mixed-methods parallel-group, randomised controlled feasibility pilot trial. Feasibility outcomes comprised assessment of: i) screening and recruitment processes, ii) design and procedures, and iii) research time and costing. The communication intervention comprised audio-recordings of a key medical consultation with an interpreter, and question prompt lists and cancer information translated into Arabic, Greek, Traditional, and Simplified Chinese. Results: Assessment of feasibility parameters revealed that despite barriers, methods utilised in this study supported the inclusion of migrant oncology patients in research. A future multi-site RCT efficacy assessment of the INFORM communication intervention using these methods is feasible if recommendations to strengthen screening and recruitment are adopted. Importantly, hiring of bilingual research assistants, and engagement with community and consumer advocates is essential. Early involvement of clinical and interpreting staff as key stakeholders is likewise recommended. Conclusion: Results from this feasibility RCT help us better understand and overcome the challenges and misconceptions about including migrant patients in clinical research.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.833
GPT teacher head0.667
Teacher spread0.166 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Clinical Trials CommunicationsSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207