MP24-06 DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTABILITY OF A NOVEL GIST-BASED DECISION AID FOR PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making II (MP24)1 May 2024MP24-06 DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTABILITY OF A NOVEL GIST-BASED DECISION AID FOR PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING Sunny Nalavenkata, Oskar Bergengren, Kathleen Lynch, Nicholas Emard, Mia Austria, Sené Martin, Gabriel Ogbennaya, Khadra Dualeh, Kristina Stevanovic, Jason Gonsky, Andrew Vickers, Angela Fagerlin, Jada G. Hamilton, Jennifer Hay, and Sigrid Carlsson Sunny NalavenkataSunny Nalavenkata , Oskar BergengrenOskar Bergengren , Kathleen LynchKathleen Lynch , Nicholas EmardNicholas Emard , Mia AustriaMia Austria , Sené MartinSené Martin , Gabriel OgbennayaGabriel Ogbennaya , Khadra DualehKhadra Dualeh , Kristina StevanovicKristina Stevanovic , Jason GonskyJason Gonsky , Andrew VickersAndrew Vickers , Angela FagerlinAngela Fagerlin , Jada G. HamiltonJada G. Hamilton , Jennifer HayJennifer Hay , and Sigrid CarlssonSigrid Carlsson View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008860.46052.c4.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The 2023 AUA/SUO guideline on early detection of prostate cancer recommends shared decision making and the use of a decision aid. However, the guideline does not indicate a specific tool to use. Traditional approaches to decision making focus on complete information and quantitative detail. In contrast, a novel approach emphasizing the main point of the message or 'gist' would be innovative, yet no such decision aid exists for prostate cancer screening. The objective of this study was to develop a novel gist-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening and to test its acceptability. METHODS: We followed a gold standard systematic development process (Ottawa Decision Support Framework, International Patient Decision Aid Standards). This included scoping and design by a multidisciplinary team, prototype development, and pilot testing in cognitive debriefing interviews to refine the content. Participants (men ages 45-60) were recruited from Kings County Hospital and NIH's ResearchMatch, a national health volunteer registry. Thematic coding and content analysis of the interview transcripts was performed by qualitative methods experts. RESULTS: A total of 40 men were interviewed in 3 rounds, with themes to establish content validity of the final decision aid (Figure 1). Median age was 55 and the majority were highly educated, with high numeracy and literacy skills. Distribution of race/ethnicity was: 53% White, 28% Black, 10% Asian; 8% Hispanic or Latino. Acceptability was high. Two thirds found the length and amount of information of the decision aid was optimal. The majority found the decision aid visually appealing, easy to read and get through, without losing interest or high mental effort. One quarter said the tool made them feel somewhat nervous, and three quarters not at all. Men could understand and relate to the images, graphs and patient stories in the decision aid. All found the decision aid helpful when making their decision and would recommend it to a friend or relative. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed acceptability and content validity of a novel gist-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. The next step is to assess the decision aid in clinical practice and conduct a randomized controlled trial testing the gist-based tool versus a traditional tool to determine efficacy on the quality of decision making. Download PPT Source of Funding: NIH/NCI K22-CA234400 © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e394 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Sunny Nalavenkata More articles by this author Oskar Bergengren More articles by this author Kathleen Lynch More articles by this author Nicholas Emard More articles by this author Mia Austria More articles by this author Sené Martin More articles by this author Gabriel Ogbennaya More articles by this author Khadra Dualeh More articles by this author Kristina Stevanovic More articles by this author Jason Gonsky More articles by this author Andrew Vickers More articles by this author Angela Fagerlin More articles by this author Jada G. Hamilton More articles by this author Jennifer Hay More articles by this author Sigrid Carlsson More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,074 | 0,018 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».