Decision aids reduced decisional conflict in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Montgomery AA, Fahey T, Peters TJ. A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. Br J Gen Pract 2003;53:446–53. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Do simple (video plus leaflet) or complex (decision analysis) decision aids assist patients with newly diagnosed hypertension in deciding whether to start drug treatment? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★☆☆☆ ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: concealed.* ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: unblinded.* ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 2 weeks and 3 months. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: 21 general practices in Avon, UK. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 217 patients (mean age 58 y, 52% men) who had sustained high blood pressure requiring discussion of drug treatment with a general practitioner and were not taking antihypertensive medication. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension and secondary hypertension. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Interventions: decision analysis (computerised utility assessment interview with individualised risk assessment and decision analysis) (n = 52); video or leaflet (n = 55); decision analysis and video or leaflet (n = 51); or usual care (n = 59). Interventions lasted 1 hour. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Outcomes: degree of uncertainty about treatment course of action (total score on the 16 item Decisional Conflict Scale [DCS]); state anxiety; knowledge of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBritish%2BJournal%2Bof%2BGeneral%2BPractise%26rft.stitle%253Dbjgp%26rft.issn%253D0960-1643%26rft.aulast%253DMontgomery%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D53%26rft.issue%253D491%26rft.spage%253D446%26rft.epage%253D453%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bfactorial%2Brandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%2Bof%2Bdecision%2Banalysis%2Band%2Ban%2Binformation%2Bvideo%2Bplus%2Bleaflet%2Bfor%2Bnewly%2Bdiagnosed%2Bhypertensive%2Bpatients.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12939889%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bjgp&resid=53/491/446&atom=%2Febmed%2F9%2F1%2F13.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.gif
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 | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".