Decisional Conflict in Parents Considering Bone-Anchored Hearing Devices in Children With Unilateral Aural Atresia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The benefits of bone-anchored hearing devices (BAHD) in children with unilateral aural atresia are controversial. We sought to determine whether there is parental decisional conflict surrounding elective placement of BAHD for this indication. METHODS: Caregivers of pediatric patients with unilateral aural atresia and normal contralateral ear undergoing percutaneous BAHD consultation were enrolled. All consultations were carried out by one pediatric otolaryngologist in a consistent manner. After consultation, the participants completed a demographics form and the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty-three caregivers of 15 male (65.2%) and 8 female (34.8%) children (mean age 5.65 years) participated. The overall median DCS score was 15.63 (standard error = 4.21). Significant decisional conflict (DCS score ≥ 25) was found in 10 participants (43.5%). The median DCS score in the group choosing surgery was 5.47, and it was 23.44 in those who did not choose surgery (Mann-Whitney U = 39, Z = -1.391, P = .164). The median DCS score for mothers and fathers was 25 and 3.91, respectively. CONCLUSION: Many parents experienced significant decisional conflict when considering percutaneous BAHD surgery in children with unilateral aural atresia in our study population. Future research should explore the impact of 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".