Randomized Trial of a Decision Aid for Patients with Cystic Fibrosis Considering Lung Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: We developed an evidence-based decision aid for patients with advanced cystic fibrosis considering referral for lung transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate whether use of the decision aid increased knowledge about the options, improved realistic expectations, and decreased decisional conflict in adult patients. METHODS: We performed a single-blind randomized controlled trial involving 149 adult patients with cystic fibrosis with an FEV(1) <or= 40% predicted from 14 Canadian and Australian centers. All participants received an education and counseling session from their cystic fibrosis team and were then randomized to receive the decision aid or usual care. The decision aid is available online at http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decaids.html. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end points measured were participants' knowledge, realistic expectations, and decisional conflict evaluated 3 weeks after randomization. Patients randomized to the decision aid had greater knowledge about their options (P < 0.0001) and had more realistic expectations about the benefits and risks of lung transplantation (P < 0.0001) compared with those randomized to usual care. The total decisional conflict score was significantly lower in the decision aid group 3 weeks postrandomization compared with the usual care group (11.6 vs. 20.4; P = 0.0007). Decisions were durable; 88% of patients in the decision aid group and 75% in the usual care group maintained the same choice 12 months after randomization (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a decision aid for patients with cystic fibrosis considering referral for lung transplantation, in addition to usual education and counseling, improves patient knowledge, realistic expectations, decisional conflict, and patient satisfaction. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00345449).
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".