IMPACT study on intervening with a manualised package to achieve treatment adherence in people with tuberculosis: protocol paper for a mixed-methods study, including a pilot randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with the rest of the UK and Western Europe, England has high rates of the infectious disease tuberculosis (TB). TB is curable, although treatment is for at least 6 months and longer when disease is drug resistant. If patients miss too many doses (non-adherence), they may transmit infection for longer and the infecting bacteria may develop resistance to the standard drugs used for treatment. Non-adherence may therefore risk both their health and that of others. Within England, certain population groups are thought to be at higher risk of non-adherence, but the factors contributing to this have been insufficiently determined, as have the best interventions to promote adherence. The objective of this study was to develop a manualised package of interventions for use as part of routine care within National Health Services to address the social and cultural factors that lead to poor adherence to treatment for TB disease.This study uses a mixed-methods approach, with six study components. These are (1) scoping reviews of the literature; (2) qualitative research with patients, carers and healthcare professionals; (3) development of the intervention; (4) a pilot randomised controlled trial of the manualised intervention; (5) a process evaluation to examine clinical utility; and (6) a cost analysis.This study received ethics approval on 24 December 2018 from Camberwell St. Giles Ethics Committee, UK (REC reference 18/LO/1818). Findings will be published and disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, published in an end of study report to our funder (the National Institute for Health Research, UK) and presented to key stakeholders.ISRCTN95243114 SECONDARY IDENTIFYING NUMBERS: University College London/University College London Hospitals Joint Research Office 17/0726.National Institute for Health Research, UK 16/88/06.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".