Decisional conflict in asthma patients: a cross sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at determining the level of decisional conflict in asthmatic individuals facing recommendation-based decisions provided to improve asthma control. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study performed on a convenience sample of 50 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with a diagnosis of asthma. They completed a decisional conflict scale (possible range of 0-100%), asthma knowledge and control questionnaires (both 0% and 100%), and a general questionnaire on socio-demographic characteristics. A decisional conflict was considered clinically significant with a score greater than 37.5%. Simple descriptive statistics were used to investigate associations with decisional conflict. RESULTS: Participants were mainly women (76%) and diagnosed with mild asthma (72%). The median age (1st and 3rd quartile) was 25 years (22 and 42). The median score (1st and 3rd quartile) of decisional conflict was 33% (24 and 44). A clinically significant score (>37.5%) was obtained in 36% of subjects. A statistically significant negative correlation between the knowledge score and the decisional conflict score (r(p) = -0.38; p = 0.006) was observed. The level of knowledge was the only statistically independent variable associated with the decisional conflict score (p = 0.0043). CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of patients with asthma have a clinically significant level of decisional conflict when facing decisions aimed at improving asthma control. Patients with poor knowledge of asthma are more at risk of clinically significant level of decisional conflict. These findings support the relevance of providing asthmatic patients with relevant information in decision aids.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".