Protocol for process evaluation of ARTEMIS cluster randomised controlled trial: an intervention for management of depression and suicide among adolescents living in slums in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are around 250 million adolescents (10-19 years) in India. The prevalence of mental health-related morbidity among adolescents in India is approximately 7.3%. Vulnerable subpopulations among adolescents such as those living in slum communities are particularly at risk due to poor living conditions, financial difficulty and limited access to support services. Adolescents' Resilience and Treatment nEeds for Mental Health in Indian Slums (ARTEMIS) is a cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention that intends to improve the mental health of adolescents living in slum communities in India. The aim of this paper is to describe the process evaluation protocol for ARTEMIS trial. The process evaluation will help to explain the intervention outcomes and understand how and why the intervention worked or did not work. It will identify contextual factors, intervention barriers and facilitators and the adaptations required for optimising implementation. METHODS: Case study method will be used and the data will include a mix of quantitative metrics and qualitative data. The UK Medical Research Council's guidance on evaluating complex interventions, the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance Framework and the Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Safety/Side Effects and, Equity criteria will be used to develop a conceptual framework and a priori codes for qualitative data analysis. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Implementation fidelity will also be measured. DISCUSSION: The process evaluation will provide an understanding of outcomes and causal mechanisms that influenced any change in trial outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics Committee of the George Institute for Global Health India (project number 17/2020) and the Research Governance and Integrity Team, Imperial College, London (ICREC reference number: 22IC7718) have provided ethics approval. The Health Ministry's Screening Committee has approved to the study (ID 2020-9770). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2022/02/040307.
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 | 0.143 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.142 | 0.031 |
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".