Decisional regret and quality of life after participating in medical decision‐making for early‐stage prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of men's reported levels of involvement in medical decision-making and quality of life (QoL) on their levels of decisional regret after definitive treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men referred to a hospital-based resource centre completed QoL and decisional-regret measures after definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer. Data from these questionnaires were linked with a previous study conducted to determine if providing individualized information to men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer would lower their levels of psychological distress and enable them to become more active participants in treatment decision-making. The preferred role in medical decision-making and QoL had previously been measured at the time of diagnosis and the assumed role at 4 months after the definitive treatment decision. This postal survey was conducted approximately 18 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 74 men, 67 (91%) responded; the mean (sd) time since definitive treatment was 10.3 (4.7) months and the mean age of the men 62.5 (6.9) years. Radical prostatectomy was the most frequent treatment (72%). Most (94%) patients participated in medical decision-making either actively or collaboratively and did not regret their treatment choice. The type of definitive treatment received had no effect on decisional regret; patients' QoL scores were similar to the levels before treatment. Levels of sexual function were significantly lower after definitive treatment, but urinary incontinence was not significantly affected. Men who had neoadjuvant hormone therapy reported having significantly more treatment-related symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that providing information to facilitate participation in medical decision-making causes decisional regret or psychological distress within the first year after definitive treatment. A longitudinal follow-up of these patients is required to adequately assess the long-term effects of treatment on QoL and decisional regret.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".