Understanding Shared Decision Making in Pediatric Otolaryngology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the level of decisional conflict experienced by parents considering surgery for their children and to determine if decisional conflict and perceptions of shared decision making are related. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic pediatric otolaryngology clinic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five consecutive parents of children who underwent surgical consultation for elective otolaryngological procedures were prospectively enrolled. Participants completed the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire and the Decisional Conflict Scale. Surgeons completed the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician version. RESULTS: Eleven participants (16.9%) scored over 25 on the Decisional Conflict Scale, a previously defined clinical cutoff indicating significant decisional conflict. Parent years of education and parent ratings of shared decision making were significantly correlated with decisional conflict (positively and negatively correlated, respectively). A logistic regression indicated that shared decision making but not education predicted the presence of significant decisional conflict. Parent and physician ratings of shared decision making were not related, and there was no correlation between physician ratings of shared decision making and parental decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Many parents experienced considerable decisional conflict when making decisions about their child's surgical treatment. Parents who perceived themselves as being more involved in the decision-making process reported less decisional conflict. Parents and physicians had different perceptions of shared decision making. Future research should develop and assess interventions to increase parents' involvement in decision making and explore the impact of significant decisional conflict on health outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".