Perspectives on Conducting Behavioral Intervention With Adolescents Using a Virtual Platform—A Thematic Analysis From the Viewpoint of Study Coordinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread adoption of virtual communication platforms. Virtual study visits were implemented in the pilot cluster randomized trial (CRT) stage of Teen Adherence in KidnEy transplant Improving Tracking To Optimize Outcomes (TAKE-IT TOO). The present study aimed to understand study coordinators' perspectives on conducting a behavioral intervention with adolescent kidney transplant recipients using virtual conferencing platforms. METHODS: Study coordinator participants (N = 6) completed questionnaires and participated in a semi-structured interview that probed comfort with digital technology, issues encountered, and overall perspectives on conducting virtual study visits. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Participants expressed confidence with technology and ability to handle the complexities of the virtual conferencing. Some expressed that virtual study visits led to a change in work habits and higher workload due to increased technology complexity. Qualitative analyses of participant interviews revealed four themes: adaptability, accessibility, logistics (including subthemes scheduling and fluidity), and communication (including subthemes clarity, engagement, and rapport). Convenience for coordinators and the perceived comfort for adolescents were noted advantages for virtual visits. Technical issues, periodic adolescent distractions, and challenges with instructional teaching through virtual conferencing were identified as potential limitations of virtual study visits. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, virtual study visits were appreciated and endorsed by study coordinators. Researchers should consider the feasibility of completing study-related tasks virtually, including accessibility of visual materials on all type of electronic devices, and ensure adequate training of study personnel when deciding to implement virtual platform in CRTs.
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 | 0.046 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".