Testing the Feasibility, User Experiences, and Preliminary Effect of <i>Conversation Cards for Adolescents</i> <sup>©</sup> For Behavior Change and Collaborative Goal Setting in Primary Care: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our team developed Conversation Cards for Adolescents© (CCAs), a tool to help adolescents and health care providers (HCPs) communicate and collaboratively set behavior change goals. The objectives of this pilot randomized controlled trial were to test the feasibility, user experience, and preliminary effect of using CCAs with adolescents in primary care, focusing on behavior change and collaborative goal setting among adolescents. From March 2019 to September 2022, adolescents were recruited from the Northeast Community Health Centre (Edmonton, AB). Adolescents were randomized (1:1) to one of two groups: CCA + goal setting (experimental group) or goal setting alone (control group). Data were collected from both groups at baseline and at 3-weeks post-baseline. In total, 31 adolescents completed the trial (terminated early due to COVID-19). The study demonstrated high practicality. Adolescents reported positive user experiences with CCAs, citing attractiveness, clarity, efficiency, and dependability. No group differences were detected for behavior changes at 3-weeks post-baseline (p > .05), although adolescents in the experimental group qualitatively described improved rapport and communication with HCPs. CCAs can be used practically in a primary health care setting to facilitate communication and rapport with adolescents; however, their effect in enabling behavior change should be investigated in a multi-site, larger-scale trial.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it