Gender Differences in Stroke Care Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women are less likely than men to receive some stroke care interventions. It is not known whether gender differences in patient preferences explain some of the observed variations in stroke care delivery. METHODS: Outpatients with and without a history of cerebrovascular disease were recruited from stroke, vascular, and general internal medicine ambulatory clinics between September 2002 and October 2003. Self-administered surveys described hypothetical scenarios, and participants were asked if they would accept therapy with thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke or carotid endarterectomy for secondary stroke prevention. The surveys also included questions on sociodemographic factors and decision-making preferences. RESULTS: A total of 586 patients (45% women) completed the survey. Women were less likely than men to accept thrombolysis (79% vs. 86%, P=0.014), even after adjustment for other factors (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.92). Women and men were equally likely to accept carotid endarterectomy (82% vs. 84%, P=0.502), even after adjustment for other factors (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.58- 1.53). Women were less confident in their decisions, were more risk averse, and would have preferred more information to assist them in their decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: No gender differences were found in patient preferences for carotid surgery. However, we observed gender differences in patient preferences for thrombolysis and in general attitudes toward stroke care decision-making. Health care providers should be aware that, compared with men, women may be more concerned about risks and may require more information before they make a decision.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".