Comparing a Generic and Individualized Information Decision Support Intervention for Men Newly Diagnosed With Localized Prostate Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief A randomized study was conducted to compare a generic and individualized approach to providing decisional support to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Patients (N = 324) were referred by community urologists to a patient education center where they were randomly assigned to receive either an individualized or generic information intervention. Men assigned to the generic group viewed a video on the various treatments available for localized prostate cancer. Men in the individualized information group used a computer program to identify their information preferences. Computer printouts on top information preferences were individualized according to patient's specific disease characteristics, followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each recommended treatment option. Both groups received a standardized package of written information. Men completed measures of decision control, satisfaction, and decision conflict at baseline and after a definitive treatment decision was made. Results demonstrated that overall both groups reported increased levels of decision control and lower levels of decision conflict after their treatment decision. All men reported being satisfied with their preparation to make a treatment decision. Compared to the generic information group, men who received the individualized information were more satisfied with the type, amount and method of providing information, and role played in treatment decision making with their physician (P < .002). Both information interventions seem to be similar in providing decisional support to this group of men at the time of diagnosis. Further research is required to determine how to identify men who may benefit from a more individualized approach. A randomized study was conducted to compare a generic and individualized approach to providing decisional support to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Patients (N = 324) were referred by community urologists to a patient education center where they were randomly assigned to receive either an individualized or generic information intervention. Men assigned to the generic group viewed a video on the various treatments available for localized prostate cancer. Men in the individualized information group used a computer program to identify their information preferences. Computer printouts on top information preferences were individualized according to patient's specific disease characteristics, followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each recommended treatment option. Both groups received a standardized package of written information. Men completed measures of decision control, satisfaction, and decision conflict at baseline and after a definitive treatment decision was made. Results demonstrated that overall both groups reported increased levels of decision control and lower levels of decision conflict after their treatment decision. All men reported being satisfied with their preparation to make a treatment decision. Compared to the generic information group, men who received the individualized information were more satisfied with the type, amount and method of providing information, and role played in treatment decision making with their physician (P < .002). Both information interventions seem to be similar in providing decisional support to this group of men at the time of diagnosis. Further research is required to determine how to identify men who may benefit from a more individualized approach.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».