A Relationship-Based Resilience Program for Promotores: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Waitlist Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community service providers (CSPs) play an integral role in the health care of low-income Hispanic or Latinx (HL) communities. CSPs have high-stress frontline jobs and share the high-risk demographics of their communities. Relational savoring (RS) has been associated with lower cardiovascular reactivity and psychosocial benefits, with particular promise among HL participants. In this study, we aim to identify RS's potential in promoting CSPs' cardiometabolic health and, in so doing, having broader impacts on the community they serve. OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled waitlist study aims to examine the effect of an RS intervention on (1) CSPs' cardiometabolic health (cardiometabolic risk factors and outcomes) and (2) CSPs' threats to leaving the workforce. METHODS: We will recruit a sample of 80 CSPs from community health agencies serving low-income HL populations. Participating CSPs will be randomized into an experimental or a waitlist control. Participants will complete 1 or 2 baseline assessment batteries (before the intervention), depending on the assigned group, and then complete 2 more assessment batteries following the 4-week RS intervention (after the intervention and at a 3-mo follow-up). The RS intervention consists of guided reflections on positive moments of connection with others. Electrocardiogram data will be obtained from a wearable device (Polar Verity Sense or Movisens) to measure heart rate variability. The primary outcome is cardiometabolic health, consisting of cardiometabolic risk (obtained from heart rate variability) and cardiometabolic health behaviors. The secondary outcomes include CSPs' threats to leaving the workforce (assessed via psychological well-being), intervention acceptability, and CSPs' delivery of cardiometabolic health programming to the community (exploratory). Analyses of covariance will be used to examine the effects of RS on cardiometabolic health and on CSPs' threats to leaving the workforce, comparing outcomes at baseline, postintervention, and at follow-up across participants in the experimental versus waitlist group. RESULTS: The study has been approved by the University of California, Irvine, Institutional Review Board and is currently in the data collection phase. By May 2023, 37 HL CSPs have been recruited: 34 have completed the baseline assessment, 28 have completed the 4 intervention sessions, 27 have completed the posttreatment assessment, and 10 have completed all assessments (including the 3-mo follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide valuable information on the potential of RS to support cardiometabolic health in HL CSPs and, indirectly, in the communities they serve. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05560893; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05560893. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51427.
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 | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.014 |
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".