MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313063648 · doi:10.2196/43702

A Web-Based Decision Aid for Caregivers of Persons With Dementia With Firearm Access (Safe at Home Study): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4313063648 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Virginia McCarthy, Jennifer Dickman Portz, Stacy M. Fischer, Emily Greenway, Rachel L. Johnson, Christopher E. Knoepke, Daniel D. Matlock, Faris Omeragic, Ryan Peterson, Megan L. Ranney, Marian E. Betz

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineDementiaPopulationGerontologyPoison controlSuicide preventionSocial supportPsychologyDiseaseMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Firearm safety among individuals with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) is an underdiscussed and underresearched concern in the United States, especially given the growing population of community-dwelling adults with ADRD. The "Safety in Dementia" (SiD) web-based decision aid was developed to support caregivers in addressing firearm access; the efficacy of SiD is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Through the SiD decision aid, the Safe at Home (S@H) study aims to support caregivers in making decisions about home safety that align with their goals and values, and behaviors regarding firearm access for persons with ADRD and firearm access. METHODS: The S@H study is a 2-armed randomized controlled trial to test the effect of the SiD decision aid on caregivers of community-dwelling adults with ADRD who have firearm access. S@H aims to recruit 500 ADRD caregivers (age ≥18 years, fluent in English or Spanish, and in the United States) through online or social media advertisements and through relevant organizations. Participants are randomized to view SiD or a control website at their own pace; all participants complete web-based questionnaires at baseline, 2 weeks, 2 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome is immediate preparation for decision-making; secondary outcomes include longitudinal decision outcomes and self-reported modifications to firearm access. The relative reach and effectiveness of each recruitment method (online/social media and through relevant organizations) will be assessed by examining differences in caregiver participation, retention rates, and relative cost. RESULTS: The study enrollment began in May 2022. As of December 2022, a total of 117 participants had enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. The results from this study will inform how best to support caregivers in decision-making regarding firearm safety. Further, results may guide approaches for recruiting caregivers and for dissemination of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05173922; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05173922. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43702.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0980.016

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207