MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400562059 · doi:10.2196/63656

A Microfinance Intervention With or Without Peer Support to Improve Mental Health Among Transgender and Nonbinary Adults (the Creating Access to Resources and Economic Support Study): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4400562059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tonia Poteat, Sari L. Reisner, Andrea L. Wirtz, Larissa Jennings Mayo‐Wilson, Carter Brown, Wiley Kornbluh, Ash Humphrey, Nancy Perrin

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMental healthTransgenderMicrofinanceIntervention (counseling)Peer supportProtocol (science)PsychologyPsychological interventionSocial supportApplied psychologyMedicineMedical educationPhysical therapyClinical psychologyAlternative medicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transgender and nonbinary (TNB) people experience economic and psychosocial inequities that make them more likely to be subject to financial and mental health harms exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainable, multilevel interventions are needed to address these harms. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic galvanized many TNB-led organizations to provide emergency financial and peer support for TNB people negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, the efficacy of these interventions has not been evaluated. The Creating Access to Resources and Economic Support (CARES) study seeks to assess the efficacy of feasible, acceptable, and community-derived interventions to reduce economic and psychological harms experienced by transgender people in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to (1) compare the efficacy of microgrants with peer mentoring with that of microgrants without peer mentoring in reducing psychological distress, (2) examine mechanisms by which microgrants with or without peer mentoring may impact psychological distress, and (3) explore participants' intervention experiences and perceived efficacy. METHODS: We will enroll 360 TNB adults into an embedded, mixed methods, 3-arm, and 12-month randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomized 1:1:1 to arm A (enhanced usual care), which will receive a single microgrant plus monthly financial literacy education, arm B (extended microgrants), which will receive enhanced usual care plus monthly microgrants, or arm C (peer mentoring), which will receive extended microgrants combined with peer mentoring. All intervention arms last for 6 months, and participants complete semiannual, web-based surveys at 0, 6, and 12 months as well as brief process measures at 3 and 6 months. A subset of 36 participants, 12 (33%) per arm, will complete longitudinal in-depth interviews at 3 and 9 months. RESULTS: Full recruitment began on January 8, 2024, and, as of July 26, 2024, a total of 138 participants have enrolled. Recruitment is expected to be completed no later than March 31, 2025, and the final study visit will take place in March 2026. CONCLUSIONS: This national, web-based study will demonstrate whether an intervention tailored to reduce material hardship and improve peer support among TNB adults will reduce psychological distress. Its equitable, community-academic partnership will ensure the rapid dissemination of study findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05971160; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05971160. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/63656.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0850.011

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.448 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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