MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399487769 · doi:10.1101/2024.06.09.24308666

Co-developing a novel intervention to promote wellbeing of family caregivers of individuals with spinal cord injury: Research protocol

2024· preprint· en· W4399487769 on OpenAlexaff
Somayyeh Mohammadi, Beth Erlander, Heather Cathcart, Julie M. Robillard, David G. T. Whitehurst, Elena Pauly, Brooke Pagé, Sophia Sauvageau, William C. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesSimon Fraser UniversityChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaGF Strong Rehabilitation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryIntervention (counseling)Protocol (science)PsychologyMedicineSpinal cordPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursingPsychiatryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Family caregivers of individuals with spinal cord injury (fcSCI) are responsible for providing assistance with activities of daily living for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), which can include emotional support and physical assistance. Over time, providing daily support can put fcSCI at risk of experiencing caregiver burden. Burden and distress can have a substantial impact on fcSCI’s wellbeing as well as their ability to respond to the needs of the individual with SCI. A direct predictor of fcSCI burden is their appraisal of their ability to cope with the individual with SCI’s illness. Therefore, supporting fcSCI’s access to education relevant to their role and the health and wellbeing of the individual with SCI can help decrease levels of burden. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the fidelity of the intervention named COMPANION and the study protocol for an eHealth approach designed to improve outcomes for fcSCI. COMPANION, co-created with caregiver partners, is an online education program designed to provide accessible education and support for fcSCI. A concurrent mixed methods study including a feasibility randomized controlled trial will be conducted to (i) assess the process, resource, management and treatment indicators; (ii) estimate the parameters needed for a full-scale, multi-site randomized controlled trial and (iii) evaluate the effect that COMPANION has on caregiver clinical outcomes compared to a control group. The primary outcome measured will be fcSCI’s burden in addition to secondary outcomes measuring depression, anxiety, relationship satisfaction, and quality of life. The fcSCI in the intervention group will be given access to COMPANION (at T1) and data will be collected again after three months (T2) and six months (T3) to capture the impact of COMPANION on fcSCI’s psychological wellbeing. Study results will evaluate whether the full study can and should be conducted and will lead to refinement of COMPANION.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.010

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicFamily and Disability Support Research→French-language works237,207→