MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978772788 · doi:10.1111/hex.12169

Development of a model to guide decision making in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis multidisciplinary care

2013· article· en· W1978772788 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Hogden, David Greenfield, Peter Nugus, Matthew C. Kiernan

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Expectations · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDepartment of Health and Ageing, Australian Government
KeywordsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisMultidisciplinary approachPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) face numerous decisions for symptom management and quality of life. Models of decision making in chronic disease and cancer care are insufficient for the complex and changing needs of patients with ALS . OBJECTIVE: The aim was to examine the question: how can decision making that is both effective and patient-centred be enacted in ALS multidisciplinary care? SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four respondents (32 health professionals, 14 patients and eight carers) from two specialized ALS multidisciplinary clinics participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Comparison of stakeholder perspectives revealed six key themes of ALS decision making. These were the decision-making process; patient-centred focus; timing and planning; information sources; engagement with specialized ALS services; and access to non-specialized services. A model, embedded in the specialized ALS multidisciplinary clinic, was derived to guide patient decision making. The model is cyclic, with four stages: 'Participant Engagement'; 'Option Information'; 'Option Deliberation'; and 'Decision Implementation'. DISCUSSION: Effective and patient-centred decision making is enhanced by the structure of the specialized ALS clinic, which promotes patients' symptom management and quality of life goals. However, patient and carer engagement in ALS decision making is tested by the dynamic nature of ALS, and patient and family distress. Our model optimizes patient-centred decision making, by incorporating patients' cyclic decision-making patterns and facilitating carer inclusion in decision processes. CONCLUSIONS: The model captures the complexities of patient-centred decision making in ALS. The framework can assist patients and carers, health professionals, researchers and policymakers in this challenging disease environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth ExpectationsSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207