ISSUES REGARDING COMPLEX COMMUNITY-BASED CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH INTERVENTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis presents three papers discussing some of the methodological issues regarding studies investigating complex community-based cardiovascular health interventions. All three studies involved the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP), a standardised blood pressure and risk factor assessment and educational sessions held in pharmacies or other locally accessible areas in small to mid-sized communities in Ontario, Canada. The first paper reviews the literature and proposes a guide on how to develop a theoretical framework for complex community-based interventions using CHAP as an example. The paper describes a stepwise process of developing a theoretical framework including challenges encountered and strategies employed to overcome them. The second paper presents how recently published randomized controlled trials evaluating complex community-based cardiovascular health interventions monitored and reported implementation fidelity based on a structured review of the published articles and a survey of their primary authors. The results showed that fidelity reporting of included studies was better than those described in previous reviews. Fidelity was verified through self-reports by implementers and supervision by researchers. Strategies described to standardize intervention delivery were through training of implementers and use of implementation guides. The authors’ survey results were consistent with the review results though there were some gaps which could be improved to strengthen fidelity reporting. A data analysis issue with studies investigating complex community-based interventions is that outcomes can be affected by factors from multiple levels. The third paper explores the association of individual, partnership, and community-related factors with CHAP participants’ use of health-related community resources and cardiovascular risk behaviours. This was a cross-sectional analysis of an on-going cohort study. The results showed that individual factors (age and self-efficacy) had the most consistent association with the outcomes. Community and partnership level variables showed less consistent association with the outcome. Methodological and analytical challenges were presented.
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 | 0.750 | 0.828 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".