MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416018489 · doi:10.2196/84679

Community Advisors’ Effect on a Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial for Asthma Treatment: Retrospective Analysis

2025· article· en· W4416018489 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wilson D. Pace, Brianna Ericson, Elizabeth W. Staton, Paulina Arias Hernandez, Bonnie Telón Sosa, Jean Kruse, Elliot Israel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Participatory Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsAsthmaClinical trialProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialMEDLINENebulizer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Community advisors including patients, families, clinicians, and payers are important partners who can guide clinical research; yet, there is little evidence documenting the impact of community engagement on study changes and outcomes. Objective: This study aims to describe the effect of community advisor input on 2 concerns identified during the conduct of a clinical trial. Methods: Using data from the PREPARE (Person Empowered Asthma Relief) randomized clinical trial studying the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as part of rescue therapy for asthma, we examined the effect of protocol changes suggested by community advisors to address study implementation concerns. Results: Community advisors addressed 2 issues that threatened the success of the research: low response rates to monthly outcome surveys and low reported use of ICS with nebulizer rescue treatments. Initial low survey response rates were addressed by changing reminder frequency, shortening the survey, reducing the burden of logging in, and adding a raffle prize for timely responses. In the pilot phase of the study, the overall 3-month survey response rate was 67% (64 completed of 96 possible surveys). After protocol changes, the survey response rate over the first 3 months was 96.08% (3404 completed of 3543 possible surveys) and was 87.38% (1032 of 1181 participants) for each individual's final 3 months; the overall response rate for the full study was 92.3%. For the full study, 72.1% (n=850) of 1181 participants completed all of their first three surveys compared with only 25% (n=8) of 32 pilot enrollees. Early low use of ICS with nebulizers was addressed by additional communication, reminder stickers, and designing a method to attach a provided ICS inhaler to the nebulizers. The percentage of people reporting use of 3 to 5 puffs of ICS with each nebulizer treatment rose from 42.1% (200/475) in the early full study to 75.4% (525/696) following the protocol changes. Conclusions: Multicomponent changes to the PREPARE protocol crafted by community advisors were associated with improved monthly survey rates and ICS adherence during nebulizer use.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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 venueJournal of Participatory MedicineSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207