Impact of pharmacist consultation versus a decision aid on decision making regarding hormone replacement therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To compare the effects of pharmacist consultation versus a decision aid on women's decisional conflict regarding use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and subsequent satisfaction with the decision-making process. Setting A family medicine clinic in Canada. Method The study was a prospective, randomised comparative trial. Peri- and post-menopausal female patients aged 48 to 52 years were invited to participate. Volunteers (n=128) received either a private consultation with a pharmacist or a take-home decision aid. Data collection was undertaken prior to the intervention and again following an appointment with a physician to discuss HRT. Outcome measures included: perception of being informed about HRT, decisional conflict, satisfaction with the education and the decision made regarding HRT, and adherence to HRT if prescribed. Telephone follow-up occurred three and 12 months after the physician appointment. Key findings After discussing HRT with their physicians, 35 of 91 women (38.5%) chose HRT, 15 (16.5%) declined it and 41 (45.1%) opted to delay their decision. Both interventions significantly increased women's perception of being informed about this form of therapy and decreased decisional conflict. Satisfaction with the education and with the HRT decision was high. More postmenopausal women in the pharmacist group reached a yes/no decision than in the decision aid group. Of those initiating HRT during the study (n =18), 16.7% had discontinued it at 12 months. Conclusion Consultation with a pharmacist and use of a decision aid are both effective methods for decreasing decisional conflict in peri- and post-menopausal women considering HRT.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".