Decision‐making needs of patients with depression: a descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study's purpose was to explore the decision-making needs of patients considering treatment options for their depression. Semi-structured interviews were guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Of 94 participants, 67 were uncertain about their decision. Common decisions identified were whether or not to take medications, attend support groups, undergo electroconvulsive therapy, and location of care. Those feeling certain were more likely to have made a decision (RR 1.37; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.78). However, 40 patients who had 'made a decision' in the recent past were uncertain about their decision. Compared with those who were certain, the uncertain group felt less informed (2.65 vs. 1.64; P < 0.001), less supported (2.63 vs. 1.88; P < 0.001) and less clear about how they valued the benefits and risks of options (2.57 vs. 1.69; P < 0.001). Other influential factors included concerns about confidentiality, distress from depression, embarrassment, panic attacks and lack of energy. Few patients wanted to defer decision making to their physician (n = 8) or family (n = 1). To support decision making, participants identified the need for: discussions with their psychiatrist, nurse or family doctor; access to printed information; and information provided by health professionals and health societies.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".