Community-engaged optimization of COVID-19 rapid evaluation and testing experiences: roll-out implementation optimization trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There continues to be a need for COVID-19 testing that is pragmatic, community-centered, and sustainable. This study will refine and test implementation strategies prioritized by community partners: (1) walk-up no-cost testing, (2) community health worker (promotores)-facilitated testing and preventive care counseling, (3) vending machines that dispense no-cost, self-testing kits. METHODS: A co-designed Theory of Change from an earlier study phase and the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainment Model (PRISM) will guide the study design, measures selection, and evaluation. The first aim is to refine and operationalize a multi-component implementation strategy bundle and outcome measures for COVID-19 testing. A Community and Scientific Advisory Board (CSAB) will be established and include community members, clinical providers/staff from the partnering Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC), public health researchers, policymakers, and a county health department ambassador. Engagement of CSAB members will be assessed through structured ethnography and a survey about the quality and quantity of engagement practices. The second aim is to implement and evaluate the impact of the implementation strategy bundle to optimize COVID-19 testing in communities using a roll-out implementation optimization (ROIO) design. Seven thousand and five hundred community members will be enrolled across four FQHC clinics over 18 months. Participants will be invited to complete an electronic survey about their demographics, health, and COVID-19 testing results and experiences. CSAB members and clinic partners will participate in PRISM fit and determinant assessments prior to each clinic rollout and post-trial. Interviews will be conducted with 60 community participants and 12 providers/staff following a 3-month rollout period at each clinic, inquiring about their experiences with the implementation strategies. Quantitative data will be analyzed using hierarchical multilevel models to determine the impact of implementation strategies. Qualitative data will be analyzed using rapid qualitative approaches to summarize implementation experiences and identify necessary changes prior to subsequent rollouts. A matrix approach will be used to triangulate data from quantitative and qualitative sources based on PRISM domains. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first pragmatic implementation trials to use a ROIO design and aims to co-create a sustainable and equitable COVID-19 testing program. Findings are likely to generalize to other public health prevention efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05894655 March 2, 2023.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".