Die Entwicklung und Evaluation von Interventionen zur Förderung Partizipativer Entscheidungsfindung – Rahmenkonzept und Messinstrumente
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years shared decision making (SDM) has gained importance as an appropriate approach for patient-physician communication and health related decision-making. The benefits of SDMconcerning patient satisfaction, treatment adherence or reduction of decisional conflict have been shown in several studies using interventional approaches on both the patients’ and physicians’ side. This article introduces the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) as a theory-based guidance for the design and evaluation of SDM interventions such as patient decision aids, training of health professionals or patient education. Its key elements are assessment of decisional needs, provision of decision support and evaluation of decision process and outcome. In addition this article presents an allocation of available psychometric instruments for measuring dimensions of the framework. Most of them stem from Englishspeaking countries and have been translated into German. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework can be used for the development of SDM interventions and associated evaluation strategies. Evaluation measures can be chosen from a variety of instruments, yet many of them still need to show their psychometric quality in further studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it