A Randomized Prospective Survey to Understand Readiness for Participation in Dementia Research Studies Across Diverse Communities: Une enquête prospective à répartition aléatoire visant à comprendre la disposition à participer à des études de recherche sur la démence dans diverses communautés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Even with recruitment efforts for racial and ethnic minorities in dementia research, there is still underrepresentation in these communities. Targeting barriers and facilitators to research participation, we developed and tested a culturally tailored communication approach tailored for Hispanics. Methods: An iterative process informed by input from the minority advisory board of an Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, developed 2 brief health communication videos, featuring Hispanic actors/Spanish language sub-titles. The experimental video (POWER) focused on barriers, facilitators, and readiness to participate in dementia research. The control video focused on education only. A randomized prospective survey compared POWER vs. control. While race or ethnicity were not inclusion criteria for enrollment, we oversampled Hispanic and non-white communities. We examined change pre- vs. post-video on dementia knowledge, cumulative barriers, and facilitators to research participation, as well as change in research readiness measured by the Transtheoretical behavior change model. Results: The analyzable sample ( N = 184) had a mean age of 40.0 (SD = 13.2) years, 57.4% ( n = 105) female, 47.2% ( n = 85) non-white, 21.2% ( n = 39) Hispanic, with 88 individuals randomized to POWER and 96 to control. Unadjusted evaluation of change from pre- vs. post-video showed significant improvements in dementia knowledge, research facilitators and research barriers (all p s < .001) but no significant difference between POWER vs. controls. Adjusted for age, gender, race, ethnicity and education, only change in dementia knowledge remained significantly improved for the group as a whole, with no significant difference between POWER vs. controls. In the entire sample, Hispanics had significantly more improvement in research readiness ( r = .217, p = .003). Exploratory analysis of positive change predictors in those randomized to POWER and to control suggests Hispanics in POWER may be at a disadvantage with respect to dementia knowledge ( r = −.248, p = .02) and research facilitators ( r = −.342, p = .001). Conclusions: Health communications can improve dementia knowledge across diverse communities.
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 | 0.032 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".