MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391686620 · doi:10.1177/20552076241228403

Factors influencing how informal caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis access and use a curated intervention website: Analysis from an RCT

2024· article· en· W4391686620 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya Packer, Nichole Austin, Michelle J. Lehman, Sara L. Douglas, Matthew Plow

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsOrdered logitPsychological interventionLogistic regressionPoisson regressionIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialGeeGeneralized estimating equationCoachingOrdinal regressionPsychologyMedicineNursingStatisticsEnvironmental healthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Healthcare consumers and providers are increasingly turning to digital solutions, such as curated websites. Knowing who accesses/benefits from these may improve design and development. This study investigated website usage of informal caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis and shifts in outcome plausibly associated with usage. Methods Secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial of 148 caregivers compared effectiveness of a website + tele-coaching to a website only intervention for caregivers. Groupwise differences in means/proportions were tested using t-tests and chi-square. Modified Poisson regression with a robust variance estimator and ordinal logistic regression tested the relationship between group and likelihood of website log-in. Ordinal logistic regression models examined whether caregiver characteristics were associated with website use. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an autoregressive correlation structure modeled the relationship between website usage and outcomes. Results Females were more likely to access the website than males (60% vs. 43%; p = 0.05). Though not statistically significant, a possible association (POR: .85, 95% CI: .69, 1.03) between caregiver burden and website access emerged; caregivers experiencing highest levels of burden appeared less likely to engage. Usage patterns differed by treatment arm: the website-only group accessed the Caring for yourself topic significantly more (61.67% vs. 38.33%: p = .04) with similar, but insignificant, trends for other topics. Conclusions Clinicians can be confident referring females with moderate levels of burden to website-based interventions. By contrast, male caregivers and those experiencing high levels of burden may be less likely to access these resources, pointing to the need for alternative interventions. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number: NCT0466208.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital HealthSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207