Pediatric subspecialty healthcare providers' views of recruitment during a randomized controlled trial of a mobile health intervention

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling pediatric populations often struggle with recruitment. Engaging healthcare providers in the recruitment process may increase patients' and caregivers' willingness to participate in research. The purpose of this study was to understand the perspectives of pediatric subspecialty healthcare providers considering recruiting patients to participate in an mobile health (mHealth) RCT. Methods: We conducted 9 semi-structured interviews and 1 focus group with a total of N = 11 providers from various disciplines before the initiation of an mHealth RCT addressing medication nonadherence. Then, we conducted 5 follow-up interviews and 1 follow-up focus group with a total of 8 of these providers several months later. We used thematic analysis to generate themes describing providers' views of the RCT and patient recruitment. Results: Providers indicated that they were willing to recruit for this study because they believed that the intervention sought to address a significant problem. They also thought it made sense to intervene using technology for this age group. However, many providers thought that certain patients (e.g., those with mild, shorter-lasting adherence difficulties) were the most appropriate to recruit. They described how keeping the trial front of mind facilitated recruitment, and they advised researchers to use strategies to promote their ongoing awareness of the study if conducting similar research in the future. Conclusion: Pediatric healthcare providers are important stakeholders in mHealth intervention research. Engaging them in participant recruitment is a complex endeavor that might promote patient enrollment, but their views of research and demanding clinical roles are important to understand when designing study procedures

Comparing apples to manzanas and oranges to naranjas: A new measure of English‐Spanish vocabulary for dual language learners

Abstract The valid assessment of vocabulary development in dual‐language‐learning infants is critical to developmental science. We developed the Dual Language Learners English‐Spanish (DLL‐ES) Inventories to measure vocabularies of U.S. English‐Spanish DLLs. The inventories provide translation equivalents for all Spanish and English items on Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) short forms; extended inventories based on CDI long forms; and Spanish language‐variety options. Item‐Response Theory analyses applied to Wordbank and Web‐CDI data ( n  = 2603, 12–18 months; n  = 6722, 16–36 months; half female; 1% Asian, 3% Black, 2% Hispanic, 30% White, 64% unknown) showed near‐perfect associations between DLL‐ES and CDI long‐form scores. Interviews with 10 Hispanic mothers of 18‐ to 24‐month‐olds (2 White, 1 Black, 7 multi‐racial; 6 female) provide a proof of concept for the value of the DLL‐ES for assessing the vocabularies of DLLs

Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology

Gould E, Fraser H, Parker T, et al. Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology. 2023.Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different (mostly social science) fields, and has found substantial variability among results, despite analysts having the same data and research question. We implemented an analogous study in ecology and evolutionary biology, fields in which there have been no empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes or model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment), and the project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health