Comparing a Generic and Individualized Information Decision Support Intervention for Men Newly Diagnosed With Localized Prostate Cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief A randomized study was conducted to compare a generic and individualized approach to providing decisional support to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Patients (N = 324) were referred by community urologists to a patient education center where they were randomly assigned to receive either an individualized or generic information intervention. Men assigned to the generic group viewed a video on the various treatments available for localized prostate cancer. Men in the individualized information group used a computer program to identify their information preferences. Computer printouts on top information preferences were individualized according to patient's specific disease characteristics, followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each recommended treatment option. Both groups received a standardized package of written information. Men completed measures of decision control, satisfaction, and decision conflict at baseline and after a definitive treatment decision was made. Results demonstrated that overall both groups reported increased levels of decision control and lower levels of decision conflict after their treatment decision. All men reported being satisfied with their preparation to make a treatment decision. Compared to the generic information group, men who received the individualized information were more satisfied with the type, amount and method of providing information, and role played in treatment decision making with their physician (P < .002). Both information interventions seem to be similar in providing decisional support to this group of men at the time of diagnosis. Further research is required to determine how to identify men who may benefit from a more individualized approach. A randomized study was conducted to compare a generic and individualized approach to providing decisional support to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Patients (N = 324) were referred by community urologists to a patient education center where they were randomly assigned to receive either an individualized or generic information intervention. Men assigned to the generic group viewed a video on the various treatments available for localized prostate cancer. Men in the individualized information group used a computer program to identify their information preferences. Computer printouts on top information preferences were individualized according to patient's specific disease characteristics, followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each recommended treatment option. Both groups received a standardized package of written information. Men completed measures of decision control, satisfaction, and decision conflict at baseline and after a definitive treatment decision was made. Results demonstrated that overall both groups reported increased levels of decision control and lower levels of decision conflict after their treatment decision. All men reported being satisfied with their preparation to make a treatment decision. Compared to the generic information group, men who received the individualized information were more satisfied with the type, amount and method of providing information, and role played in treatment decision making with their physician (P < .002). Both information interventions seem to be similar in providing decisional support to this group of men at the time of diagnosis. Further research is required to determine how to identify men who may benefit from a more individualized approach.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it