MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391491425 · doi:10.2196/52195

Assessment of a Daily Diary Study Including Biospecimen Collections in a Sample of Sexual and Gender Minority Young Adults: Feasibility and Acceptability Study

2024· article· en· W4391491425 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie Cook, Erica P. Wood, Mariana Rodrigues, Janice Jachero Caldas, Maxline Delorme

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsSample (material)Sexual minorityPsychologyClinical psychologyGerontologyMedicineSexual orientationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Young sexual minority men (YSMM) engage in cardiometabolic risk behaviors (eg, substance use) at higher rates than their heterosexual counterparts. Theory and previous research suggest that these risk behaviors may stem, in part, from exposure to minority stress (ie, discrimination based on sexual identity and other identities such as race). OBJECTIVE: This pilot study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual 2-day daily diary study that examined daily experiences with discrimination, cardiometabolic risk behaviors (ie, sleep, physical activity, and substance use behaviors), and patterns of physiological stress and inflammation among YSMM aged 18 to 35 years. METHODS: Participants (n=20) were recruited from the greater New York metropolitan area and engaged in a 2-day daily diary protocol wherein they provided web-based consent, took a web-based baseline survey, and then, starting the next day, provided 3 saliva samples a day for 2 consecutive days to measure salivary cortisol, engaged in 3 daily diaries per day, and provided 1 blood spot sample via the finger prick method to measure high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. At follow-up, participants were interviewed via videoconferencing to ascertain their experiences and feelings related to the study protocol. Qualitative analyses explored the feasibility and acceptability of the study protocol, and exploratory quantitative analyses explored the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations among the main study variables of interest. RESULTS: The retention rate was high (19/20, 95%) in our study sample. Qualitative analyses demonstrated that participants were willing to engage in similar, longer-term studies (eg, studies that include both week and weekend days) in the future and suggested the feasibility and acceptability of our study protocol among YSMM. However, participants noted several areas for improvement (eg, redundancy of survey items and difficulty pricking one's finger) that should be considered in future research. Preliminary quantitative analyses revealed a moderate negative correlation between everyday discrimination and mean cortisol levels (r=-0.51; P=.03). Furthermore, descriptive analyses suggest that that daily cortisol curves differ across races or ethnicities among YSMM. White and other-identified YSMM experienced the highest cortisol awakening response (mean 0.39, SD 0.21 µg/dL for White participants; mean 0.34, SD 0.34 µg/dL for others) with the steepest decline around bedtime (mean 0.05, SD 0.04 µg/dL for White participants; mean 0.09, SD 0.13 µg/dL for others) followed by a lower cortisol awakening response (mean 0.31, SD 0.11 µg/dL for Hispanic participants; mean 0.23, SD 0.15 µg/dL for Black participants) and a slower decline around bedtime (mean 0.10, SD 0.09 µg/dL for Hispanic participants; mean 0.03, SD 0.02 µg/dL for Black participants) among Hispanic and Black YSMM. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results suggest that similar study protocols are feasible and acceptable among YSMM. Future research should highlight the pathways through which cardiovascular disease risk may arise among YSMM using longer-term study designs and more diverse study samples.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.341 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→