Partizipative Entscheidungsfindung in der kardiovaskulären Risikoprävention: Ergebnisse der Pilotstudie von ARRIBA-Herz, einer konsultationsbezogenen Entscheidungshilfe für die allgemeinmedizinische Praxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Several measures to prevent cardiovascular diseases are well known. Although personal preferences are of crucial importance while evaluating the course of action best to be taken, complex decision aids for cardio-vascular prevention are rarely developed and validated. Methods: A transactional decision aid (named ARRIBA-Herz) for the counseling situation in regard to cardiovascular preventive measures was therefore developed. To include the most useful instruments in the patient questionnaire of our cluster randomized trial to evaluate the decision aid, we piloted the questionnaire with 155 patients after being counseled in regard to prevention of cardiovascular diseases and other decisions, and 56 patients after a consultation in which the decision aid was applied. Results: The Man Son Hing scale, developed in Canada and the US, and the PEF-FB scale, currently being validated in Germany were the most useful instruments to evaluate shared decision making in our study. Conclusion: The piloting of ARRIBA-Herz gives some evidence, that its implementation leads to higher patient satisfaction with the decision making process and the decision in regard to cardiovascular preventive measures. This conclusion however has to be drawn very carefully, since the comparison group was heterogeneous and was recruited shortly before the intervention group. Some results of the piloting might contribute to further developing the theoretical framework of the shared decision making process.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".