MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410572752 · doi:10.1017/s1047951125001702

Parental and adolescent perceptions of clinical trial participation: the FUEL randomised controlled trial and open-label extension study

2025· article· en· W4410572752 on OpenAlexaff
Linda M. Lambert, Felicia Trachtenberg, Russell Gongwer, Thomas Giorgio, Olukayode Garuba, Sandra Mihelic, Kathleen Rathge, Martha Rolland, Cynthia Smith, Mary Stumpf, Stacy Woyciechowski, Frances Woodard, Jennifer S. Yauck, Victoria L. Pemberton

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology in the Young · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOpen labelExtension (predicate logic)Clinical trialRandomized controlled trialPerceptionFamily medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Adolescent and parental perceptions of the Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal Assessment Randomised Controlled Trial (FUEL) and its open-label extension were examined, to identify factors affecting future research participation. Methods: A validated survey was administered at two time points to adolescents (12–19 years) and their parents to assess likes/dislikes of study participation, research team, study burden and benefits. A 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree [−2] to strongly agree [ + 2]) was used, and scores were averaged. Regression models explored potential predictors. Open-ended questions queried the most/least appealing aspects of participation and considerations for future research. Results: Among 250 FUEL participants at 14 centres, 179 adolescent and 183 parent surveys were completed at T1 (6 months after randomisation). Perceptions of research participation were generally positive: 1.35 ± 0.45 for adolescents; 1.56 ± 0.38 ( p < 0.001) for parents. There were no significant differences between females vs. males. Themes from open-ended responses included liking to help others and themselves, liking the study team, and disliking study burden. Adolescents liked the compensation and disliked study-related testing. At T2 (end of open-label extension study), 121 adolescents and 114 parents responded. Perception scores remained high at 1.39 ± 0.51 for adolescents and 1.58 ± 0.37 for parents ( p = 0.001). There were no significant gender differences in perceptions between adolescents, but mothers had slightly better perceptions than fathers ( p = 0.004). Conclusions: Perceptions of research were positive and slightly better for parents. Study teams and compensation were key contributors to positive perceptions. Study burden and testing were viewed less favourably. Future studies should consider families’ preferences and potential barriers to participation.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.492
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology in the YoungSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207