Impact of providing audiotapes of primary treatment consultations to men with prostate cancer: a multi‐site, randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to systematically examine the efficacy of providing men with prostate cancer with an audiotape of their primary treatment consultation. METHOD: Participants included 425 men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and 15 radiation oncologists from 4 cancer centers in Canada. Patients were block randomized to one of four consultation groups: 1. Standard care control--not audio-taped; 2. Audio-taped--no audiotape given; 3. Audio-taped--patient given audiotape; and 4. Audio-taped--patient offered choice of receiving audiotape or not (4 patients declined; 94 accepted). Patient outcomes were measured at 12 weeks post-consultation: perceived degree of information provision; audiotape satisfaction and use; communication satisfaction with oncologist; mood state; and cancer-specific quality of life. RESULTS: Patients receiving the consultation audiotape reported having been provided with significantly more disease and treatment information in general (p=0.04), and more information about treatment alternatives (p=0.04) and treatment side effects (p=0.01) in particular, than patients who did not receive the audiotape. Audiotape benefit was not significantly related to patient satisfaction with communication, mood state or quality of life at 12 weeks post-consultation, and was not significantly affected by choice of receiving the audiotape. Patients rated the audiotape intervention positively, with an average score of 83.0 out of 100. CONCLUSION: Consultation audiotapes are rated highly by men with prostate cancer, and these audiotapes help to enhance their perception of having been provided with critical disease- and treatment-related information.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".