MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386547124 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2023.1198314

Conducting a child injury prevention RCT in the wake of COVID-19: lessons learned for virtual human subjects research

2023· article· en· W4386547124 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia Prokos, Amy Damashek, Barbara A. Morrongiello, Emilie Arbour, Bethelhem Belachew, Farzana Zafreen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersWestern Michigan University
KeywordsPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Data collectionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyMedicineMedical educationMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death among children in the United States, and children living in low-income households are particularly at risk for sustaining unintentional injuries. Close parental supervision has been found to reduce young children's risk for injury; however, few studies have examined interventions to increase parental supervision. This paper discusses COVID-19 related modifications that were made to a federally funded randomized controlled trial to reduce low-income children's risk for unintentional injury. The study's procedures (data collection and intervention delivery) had to be transitioned from in-person to a fully virtual format. Modifications that were made to the study included use of: participant cell phones to conduct data collection and intervention sessions; virtual meeting software to conduct sessions with participants and; an online platform to collect questionnaire data. In addition, many modifications were required to complete the in-home observation virtually. In terms of feasibility, the investigators were able to collect all of the data that was originally proposed; however, recruitment and retention was more challenging than anticipated. Lessons learned during the modification process are included to provide guidance to researchers seeking to conduct virtual human subjects research in the future.

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)0.236
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.297
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2360.297
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.295
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Digital HealthSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207