Proof-of-Concept of Online-Only Enrollment for Collecting Longitudinal Patient-Reported Outcomes in Young Individuals With Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The importance of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in research in congenital heart disease (CHD) is being increasingly recognized. The resources needed for direct, in-clinic enrollment of study participants are important barriers. Social media enable new ways to interact with potential participants. We aimed to test the feasibility of collecting PRO without direct contact by the research team, with subsequent linkage with the Quebec CHD Registry. Methods: We targeted all patients with CHD aged ≥14 years and parent of a child with CHD aged 5-17 years who received cardiac care in Québec. We disseminated a link to an online survey consisting of 4 PRO instruments on the internet and by displaying in pediatric cardiology waiting rooms. No direct contact by a study team was done. The data were subsequently linked to a clinical registry of >50,000 patients. Results: A total of 160 people accessed the study, of whom 68 signed the consent form. A plateau of enrollment was quickly reached despite reminders. A total of 44 participants provided information for linkage to the clinical registry. The study had an over-representation of severe disease cases and lacked ethnic diversity. The retention rate at 1 year was 25%. Health-related quality of life was consistent with other CHD cohorts, and participants reported good satisfaction with life. Conclusion: Recruiting participants with CHD without direct contact was ineffective at population level. Several factors may explain these results, including a weaker community network among participants than anticipated, apprehension about sharing personal information online, and difficulty effectively targeting participants on the internet.
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 | 0.051 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".