MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shared Decision-Making in Pediatric Allogeneic Blood and Marrow Transplantation: What If There Is No Decision to Make?

2012· article· en· W2106800598 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca D. Pentz, Wendy Pelletier, Melissa A. Alderfer, Kristin Stegenga, Diane L. Fairclough, Pamela S. Hinds

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineGrandparentTransplantationContext (archaeology)SiblingInterviewFamily medicineLegal guardianPediatricsDevelopmental psychologySurgeryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Learning Objectives After completing this course, the reader will be able to: When the alternative to medical treatment is likely death, ask parents and children whether they agree to the medical plan rather than suggesting they are sharing in “a decision.”Use the model of shared decision in appropriate settings, that is, those in which a bona fide choice exists. CME This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com Introduction. Shared decision-making between health care professionals, patients, parents, and guardians is widely recommended today. However, it is unclear what happens when collaborative language is used by physicians in clinical situations for which patients and parents/guardians believe there is no decision to be made. Methods. We conducted a qualitative study of decision-making for pediatric allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation by interviewing patients, parents, grandparents, donor siblings, and nondonor children after the decision to proceed to transplant but before the transplantation. Each interview was audio recorded, transcribed, and coded for major themes. Results. In total, 107 members of 30 families at four sites were interviewed, including 15 patients, 22 mothers, 2 stepmothers, 1 grandmother, 19 fathers, 3 stepfathers, 1 grandfather, 13 sibling donors, and 31 nondonor children (siblings, half-siblings, and cousins). In all, 81% of parents/guardians, 73% of patients, 31% of donors, and 29% of other children reported there was no decision to be made. Almost all (88%) parents/guardians indicated that the physician's recommendation was a large determinant in their agreement to go forward with the transplantation. All parents/guardians reported that “agreeing to a plan” was a better description of what their consent entailed. Conclusions. To be respectful of patients and parents/guardians, we suggest that “agreeing to a plan” may be a better description for what parents/guardians must consider when the alternative to a transplantation is likely death. In this clinical context, the shared decision-making model with a focus on “a decision to be made” may be misleading.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations42
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207