What influences patient decision-making in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis multidisciplinary care? A study of patient perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are required to make decisions concerning quality of life and symptom management over the course of their disease. Clinicians perceive that patients' ability to engage in timely decision-making is extremely challenging. However, we lack patient perspectives on this issue. This study aimed to explore patient experiences of ALS, and to identify factors influencing their decision-making in the specialized multidisciplinary care of ALS. METHODS: An exploratory study was conducted. Fourteen patients from two specialized ALS multidisciplinary clinics participated in semistructured interviews that were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed for emergent themes. RESULTS: Decision-making was influenced by three levels of factors, ie, structural, interactional, and personal. The structural factor was the decision-making environment of specialized multidisciplinary ALS clinics, which supported decision-making by providing patients with disease-specific information and specialized care planning. Interactional factors were the patient experiences of ALS, including patients' reaction to the diagnosis, response to deterioration, and engagement with the multidisciplinary ALS team. Personal factors were patients' personal philosophies, including their outlook on life, perceptions of control, and planning for the future. Patient approaches to decision-making reflected a focus on the present, rather than anticipating future progression of the disease and potential care needs. CONCLUSION: Decision-making for symptom management and quality of life in ALS care is enhanced when the patient's personal philosophy is supported by collaborative relationships between the patient and the multidisciplinary ALS team. Patients valued the support provided by the multidisciplinary team; however, their focus on living in the present diverged from the efforts of health professionals to prepare patients and their carers for the future. The challenge facing health professionals is how best to engage each patient in decision-making for their future needs, to bridge this gap.
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".