A Decision Aid for Long‐Term Tube Feeding in Cognitively Impaired Older Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and evaluation of a decision aid for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older people. DESIGN: Before-and-after study. SETTING: Acute care hospitals in Ottawa, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Substitute decision makers for 15 cognitively impaired inpatients 65 years and older being considered for placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaires were used to compare the substitute decision makers' knowledge, decisional conflict, and predisposition regarding feeding tube placement before and after exposure to the decision aid. The acceptability of the decision aid was also assessed. RESULTS: Substitute decision makers significantly increased their knowledge (P = .004) and decreased their decisional conflict (P = .004) regarding long-term tube feeding after using the decision aid. The impact of the decision aid on predisposition toward the intervention was greatest for those who were unsure of their preferences at baseline. All substitute decision makers found the decision aid helpful and acceptable despite very difficult and emotional circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid improves the decision-making process for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older patients by decreasing decisional conflict and by promoting decisions that are informed and consistent with personal values. There are particular challenges for developing and evaluating these tools in the context of end-of-life decisions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".