MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109622137 · doi:10.1177/0272989x12443311

Decision Coaching to Prepare Patients for Making Health Decisions

2012· review· en· W2109622137 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Stacey, Jennifer Kryworuchko, Carol Bennett, Mary Murray, Sarah Mullan, France Légaré

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversity of SaskatchewanOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingClinical decision makingMedical decision makingDecision analysisPsychologyMedicineManagement scienceProcess managementBusinessMedical emergencyIntensive care medicinePsychotherapistEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is individualized, nondirective facilitation of patient preparation for shared decision making. PURPOSE: To explore characteristics and effectiveness of decision coaching evaluated within trials of patient decision aids (PtDAs) for health decisions. DATA SOURCES: A subanalysis of trials included in the 2011 Cochrane Review of PtDAs. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible trials allowed the effectiveness of decision coaching to be compared with another intervention and/or usual care. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened 86 trials, extracted data, and appraised quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten trials were eligible. Decision coaching was provided by genetic counselors, nurses, pharmacists, physicians, psychologists, or health educators. Coaching compared with usual care (n = 1 trial) improved knowledge. Coaching plus PtDA compared with usual care (n = 4) improved knowledge and participation in decision making without reported dissatisfaction. Coaching compared with PtDA alone (n = 4) increased values-choice agreement and improved satisfaction with the decision-making process without any difference in knowledge or participation in decision making. Coaching plus PtDA compared with PtDA alone (n = 4) had no difference in knowledge, values-choice agreement, participation in decision making, or satisfaction with the process. Decision coaching plus PtDA was more cost-effective compared with PtDA alone or usual care (n = 1). LIMITATIONS: Methodological quality, number of trials, and description of decision coaching. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, decision coaching improved knowledge. However, the improvement in knowledge was similar when coaching was compared with PtDA alone. Outcomes for other comparisons are more variable, some trials showing positive effects and other trials reporting no difference. Given the small number of trials and variability in results, further research is required to determine the effectiveness of decision coaching.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.472
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations162
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207