Randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of an intervention to implement evidence-based patient decision support in a nursing call centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the effect of an intervention on call centre nurses' knowledge of decision support and skills in coaching callers facing value-sensitive health decisions. Forty-one registered nurses at a health call centre were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. The intervention was a coaching protocol, online tutorial, skills building workshop and performance feedback. The main outcome measures were: knowledge test; blinded quality assessment of coaching skills during simulated calls and call duration. Compared with controls, nurses in the intervention group had better knowledge (74 versus 60%, P = 0.007) and decision coaching skills (81 versus 44%, P < 0.001), particularly in assessing decisional needs (information, values clarity, support, stage and timing of decision) and addressing support issues. Call duration did not differ (18.5 versus 16.7 min, P = 0.73). The coaching protocol was rated as compatible with nurses' views on decision-making and more advantageous compared with their usual practices. The intervention improved the quality of nurses' decision coaching without affecting call duration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".