ArticleStudies in health technology and informatics2022
Applying Participatory Design Mixed-Methods Approaches to Refine Twitter-Based Social Support Interventions for African Americans and Hispanic Family Caregivers of Persons with Dementia.
Article in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We applied mixed-methods to refine our first version of the Twitter message library (English 400, translated into Spanish 400) for African Americans and Hispanic family caregivers for a person with dementia. We conducted a series of expert panels to collect quantitative and qualitative data using surveys and in-depth interviews. Using mixed methods to ensure unbiased results, the panelists first independently scored them (1 message/5 panelist) on a scale of 1 to 4 (1: lowest, 4: highest), followed by in-depth interviews and group discussions. Survey results showed that the average score was 3.47, indicating good to excellent (SD 0.35, ranges from 1.8 to 4). Quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews showed different results in emotional support messages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.