Blood Pressure and Self-management in Black Women With Hypertension: Protocol Revisions to the Brain Relationships Among Information, Neuroprocessing, and Self-Management Study Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic and the halt to in-person research activities beginning in March 2020 brought new challenges to protocol development and implementation. Due to the pandemic, we had to revise our protocol for the Brain Relationships Among Information, Neuroprocessing, and Self-Management (BRAINS) study, which was designed to examine health information behavior, brain activity, diabetes status, and self-management behavior among Black women with hypertension. Objective This report outlines 7 steps describing how our research team (1) revised the BRAINS study protocol, (2) implemented a remote method of data collection, and (3) mitigated the challenges we faced. Methods Prior to March 2020, Black women with hypertension were invited to participate in the BRAINS study to undergo a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan, complete surveys, have their blood pressure measured, and have their blood drawn. After these measures were collected, participants would receive phone calls from a dietician to complete two 24-hour dietary recalls using the Nutrition Data System for Research. Our revised protocol relied on a web-based, interactive approach. Participants received a study kit that included an Omron automatic home blood pressure monitor and a hemoglobin A1c kit from the DTIL laboratory. In a Zoom meeting with each participant, our team played an introductory video, administered surveys (via Qualtrics), and guided participants through measuring their blood pressure and performing a finger stick to collect a blood sample for hemoglobin A1c testing. We examined cognitive function using the TestMyBrain Digital Neuropsychology Toolkit, as we were unable to access the functional magnetic resonance imaging laboratory to assess brain activity. The 7 steps in revising our protocol were as follows: conceptualizing the move from in-person to remote study activities (step 1); contacting the funders (step 2); submitting changes for Institutional Review Board approval (step 3); preparing to implement the revised protocol (step 4); implementing the study changes (step 5); mitigating challenges (step 6); and evaluating protocol implementation (step 7). Results Approximately 1700 individuals responded to web-based advertisements about the BRAINS study. A total of 131 individuals completed our eligibility screener. We conducted our first Zoom appointment in July 2020 and our last Zoom appointment in September 2020. Using our revised strategies, a total of 99 participants completed all study measures within a 3-month period. Conclusions In this report, we discuss successes and challenges in revising our protocol and reaching our population of interest remotely, safely, and effectively. The information we have outlined can help researchers create similar protocols to reach and conduct research remotely with diverse populations, such as individuals who are unable to participate in studies in person. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/43849
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.155 | 0.241 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".