MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406472828 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317485

Reasons for declining to participate in a trial of online cognitive behavioural therapy following orthopaedic trauma: A mixed methods study

2025· article· en· W4406472828 on OpenAlexafffund
Sheila Sprague, Jodi L. Gallant, Natalie Fleming, Sofia Bzovsky, Sarah MacRae, Mavis Lyons, J. Prieto, Herman Johal, Paula McKay, Jason W. Busse

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersOrthopaedic Trauma AssociationMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDartmouth College
KeywordsMedicineCognitionMEDLINEPhysical therapyClinical psychologyIntensive care medicinePsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The timely enrollment of study participants is critical to the success of clinical trials. Understanding factors that contribute to patients' decision to participate in trials involving online cognitive behavioural therapy for pain management should prove helpful to optimize the design of study protocols. Fracture patients from an orthopaedic clinic who declined to participate in the Cognitive behavioural therapy to Optimize Post-operative rEcovery (COPE) trial were asked to complete a Research Participation Questionnaire that asked them about their previous experiences with clinical research and mental health therapy and their reasons for declining to participate in the COPE trial. At the end of the questionnaire, a subset of participants was offered the opportunity to participate in a telephone interview to further discuss why they declined to participate in the COPE trial. Sixty-four patients who declined to participate in the COPE trial completed the questionnaire and twenty of these participants agreed to take part in a telephone interview (31%). Twenty-two participants (34%) had previous experience with clinical research and six participants (9%) had received cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in the past. Excessive time commitment (41%) was the most commonly selected reason for not participating in the COPE trial, followed by a disinclination to participate in clinical research (19%). Four themes emerged from the interviews with participants: 1) belief that they could overcome mental health challenges after their fracture without external help; 2) belief that CBT might be helpful for some fracture patients, but not for themselves; 3) preference for online or in-person CBT; and 4) concerns regarding time commitment. To maximize enrollment, trials exploring the role of psychotherapy in recovery from orthopedic trauma should optimize time commitment of psychotherapy. Providing information in the patient consent process regarding evidence for psychotherapy and recovery from orthopedic trauma may also prove helpful in promoting patient enrollment.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.334
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→