Patient decision aid on natural health products for menopausal symptoms: randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a patient decision aid (PDA) regarding the use of natural health products (NHPs) at menopause on decisional conflict, knowledge of NHPs, congruence between values and choice, persistence with an option, intention to disclose the use of NHPs to a physician or a pharmacist and intention to use decision support interventions in the future. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial in which 90 women, aged 45-64 years, facing a decision about using NHPs for menopausal symptoms, received a PDA (experimental group) or a general information brochure about menopause (control group). Main outcome Decisional conflict. Measures Women were evaluated at baseline and after a two-week period using the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Analysis of covariance was used to determine the differences between both groups on the DCS. RESULTS: Both groups experienced a statistically significant reduction on the DCS (-0.55 +/- 0.59, P < 0.0001 versus -0.52 +/- 0.73, P < 0.0001). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.32). Both groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in knowledge of NHPs (0.86 +/- 1.77, P = 0.002 versus 0.51 +/- 1.47, P = 0.031). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.162). CONCLUSION: A PDA regarding the use of NHPs for menopausal symptoms impacted favourably on women's decisional conflict, but was not superior to a general information brochure on menopause.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".