Exploring Attitudes of Primary Caregivers Towards Pediatric Tissue-Based Research using Large Language Models: Insights from Rural and Urban Community Calls and Surveys
Chotani, A.; Moradinasab, N.; Sullivan, B. H.; Griffin-Scudari, L.; Cohen, J.; Rhoads, F.; Meyer, C.; Setiady, I.; Weinhouse, A.; Dumont, M.; Greene, A. R.; Thiagarajah, J. R.; Silvester, J.; Glover, S. C.; Syed, S.
Show abstract
Objectives: Explore the perspectives of primary caregivers towards pediatric tissue-based research participation. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Two academic pediatric gastroenterology sites in the United States, including one serving a largely rural referral population and one urban clinic population. Participants: Primary caregivers of children who underwent endoscopy between 2017-2018 at UVA or were seen in the clinic setting between 2024-2025 at Tulane and referred by their child's gastroenterologist to complete an electronic survey. Measures and Analysis: Primary caregiver attitudes, motivations, and concerns toward pediatric tissue-based research were explored using descriptive-focused coding in NVivo and a large language model (LLM) processing pipeline based on OpenAI's GPT-4 for thematic, emotional, and sentiment analyses. Results: Data were analyzed from 92 primary caregivers. Overall, respondents were amenable to having their children provide specimens for research. Primary motivations included a desire to help others or advance science, and perceived medical benefits for their child so long as specimen collection did not cause additional distress. Discomfort with participation was often linked to prior traumatic clinical experiences, concerns about additional biopsies causing unnecessary discomfort, or privacy issues. A desire to help others and potentially their own child was the strongest motivator for participation, while scheduling constraints and perceived risks to the child's health were the main barriers. Conclusions: At both sites, primary caregivers expressed strong willingness to participate in pediatric research. Primary concerns included perceived invasiveness of biospecimen collection and potential for additional discomfort. Limitations of the study included the unstructured nature of the data making the analysis and interpretation challenging. Strengths included two demographically diverse sites, intentional enrollment of primary caregivers of children both with and without invasive diagnostic testing, and use of LLM based analyses.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Pandemic Journaling Project: A new dataset of first-person accounts of the COVID-19 pandemic 94%
- Comprehensive profiling of social mixing patterns in resource poor countries: a mixed methods research protocol 93%
- From many voices, one question: Community co-design of a population-based qualitative cancer research study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Natural language processing to evaluate texting conversations between patients and healthcare providers during COVID-19 Home-Based Care in Rwanda at scale 93%
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 93%
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers’ experiences, and stakeholder engagement protocol 92%
- Birhan Maternal and Child Health cohort: a study protocol 91%
- Protocol for Development of a Reporting Guideline for Causal and Counterfactual Prediction Models 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Collecting mortality data via mobile phone surveys: a non-inferiority randomized trial in Malawi 93%
- Architecture of systems affecting disease trajectories in a conflict zone: A community-centered systems inquiry in North Gaza 92%
- Self-tests for COVID-19: what is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023) 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.