MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317779826 · doi:10.2196/41240

Tough Talks COVID-19 Digital Health Intervention for Vaccine Hesitancy Among Black Young Adults: Protocol for a Hybrid Type 1 Effectiveness Implementation Randomized Controlled Trial

2023· article· en· W4317779826 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Henna Budhwani, Allysha C. Maragh‐Bass, Elizabeth E. Tolley, Maria Leonora G. Comello, Marie C. D. Stoner, Margo Adams Larsen, Donald Brambilla, Kathryn E. Muessig, Audrey Pettifor, Christyenne L Bond, Christina Toval, Lisa Hightow‐Weidman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialMedicinePopulationFocus groupIntervention (counseling)Family medicinePublic healthNursingEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Interventions for increasing the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among Black young adults are central to ending the pandemic. Black young adults experience harms from structural forces, such as racism and stigma, that reduce receptivity to traditional public health messaging due to skepticism and distrust. As such, Black young adults continue to represent a priority population on which to focus efforts for promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake. OBJECTIVE: In aims 1 and 2, the Tough Talks digital health intervention for HIV disclosure will be adapted to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and tailored to the experiences of Black young adults in the southern United States (Tough Talks for COVID-19). In aim 3, the newly adapted Tough Talks for COVID-19 digital health intervention will be tested across the following three southern states: Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina. METHODS: Our innovative digital health intervention study will include qualitative and quantitative assessments. A unique combination of methodological techniques, including web-based surveys, choose-your-own-adventures, digital storytelling, user acceptability testing, and community-based participatory approaches, will culminate in a 2-arm hybrid type 1 effectiveness implementation randomized controlled trial, wherein participants will be randomized to the Tough Talks for COVID-19 intervention arm or a standard-of-care control condition (N=360). Logistic regression will be used to determine the effect of the treatment arm on the probability of vaccination uptake (primary COVID-19 vaccine series or recommended boosters). Concurrently, the inner and outer contexts of implementation will be ascertained and catalogued to inform future scale-up. Florida State University's institutional review board approved the study (STUDY00003617). RESULTS: Our study was funded at the end of April 2021. Aim 1 data collection concluded in early 2022. The entire study is expected to conclude in January 2025. CONCLUSIONS: If effective, our digital health intervention will be poised for broad, rapid dissemination to reduce COVID-19 mortality among unvaccinated Black young adults in the southern United States. Our findings will have the potential to inform efforts that seek to address medical mistrust through participatory approaches. The lessons learned from the conduct of our study could be instrumental in improving health care engagement among Black young adults for several critical areas that disproportionately harm this community, such as tobacco control and diabetes prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05490329; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05490329. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41240.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.034
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.013

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.437 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207