MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101378704 · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0797-8

Impact of an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes on decisional conflict – study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2015· article· en· W2101378704 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine Yu, Noah Ivers, Dawn Stacey, Jeremy Rezmovitz, Deanna Telner, Kevin E. Thorpe, Susan Hall, Marc Settino, David M. Kaplan, Michael James Coons, Sumeet Sodhi, Joanna E. M. Sale, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of TorontoOttawa Hospital Research InstituteWomen's College HospitalYork UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicinePsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)FidelityDecision aidsProtocol (science)GuidelineDistressHealth careNursingFamily medicineAlternative medicineComputer scienceClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Competing health concerns present real obstacles to people living with diabetes and other chronic diseases as well as to their primary care providers. Guideline implementation interventions rarely acknowledge this, leaving both patients and providers feeling overwhelmed by the volume of recommended actions. Interprofessional (IP) shared decision-making (SDM) with the use of decision aids may help to set treatment priorities. We developed an evidence-based SDM intervention for patients with diabetes and other conditions that was framed by the IP-SDM model and followed a user-centered approach. Our objective in the present study is to pilot an IP-SDM and goal-setting toolkit following the Knowledge-to-Action Framework to assess (1) intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and (2) impact on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, health-related quality of life and patient assessment of chronic illness care. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-step, parallel-group, clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted, with the primary goal being to assess intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT. The first step is a provider-directed implementation only; the second (after a 6-month delay) involves both provider- and patient-directed implementation. Half of the clusters will be assigned to receive the IP-SDM toolkit, and the other will be assigned to be mailed a diabetes guidelines summary. Individual interviews with patients, their family members and health care providers will be conducted upon trial completion to explore toolkit use. A secondary purpose of this trial is to gather estimates of the toolkit's impact on decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include diabetes distress, quality of life and chronic illness care, which will be assessed on the basis of patient-completed questionnaires of validated scales at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Multilevel hierarchical regression models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data. DISCUSSION: An individualized approach to patients with multiple chronic conditions using SDM and goal setting is a desirable strategy for achieving guideline-concordant treatment in a patient-centered fashion. Our pilot trial will provide insights regarding strategies for the routine implementation of such interventions in clinical practice, and it will offer an assessment of the impact of this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015.

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 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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207