MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044067495 · doi:10.1211/0022357022999

Impact of pharmacist consultation versus a decision aid on decision making regarding hormone replacement therapy

2004· article· en· W2044067495 on OpenAlex
Michelle Deschamps, Jeff Taylor, Shannan L. Neubauer, Susan J. Whiting, Kathryn Green

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacistPsychological interventionFamily medicineDecision aidsIntervention (counseling)Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Patient satisfactionPhysical therapyNursingPharmacyAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.402 · 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