MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322669621 · doi:10.1177/2050312116642693

Patient perceptions of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions: A qualitative study

2016· article· en· W2322669621 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jane MacIver, Alana Tibbles, Filio Billia, Heather J. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorMedicineMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a class I recommendation for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions to occur between physicians and heart failure patients. Few studies have reported the patient's perspective on the timing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions. AIM: To determine patient awareness, preferences and timing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions. DESIGN: Grounded theory was used to collect and analyze interview data from 25 heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, from the Heart Function Clinic at University Health Network (Toronto, Canada). RESULTS: The sample (n = 25) was predominately male (76%) with an average age of 62 years. Patients identified three stages where they felt implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation should be discussed: (1) prior to implantation, (2) with any significant deterioration but while they were of sound mind to engage in and communicate their preferences and (3) at end of life, where patients wished further review of their previously established preferences and decisions about implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation. Most patients (n = 17, 68%) said they would consider deactivation, six (24%) were undecided and two (8%) were adamant they would never turn it off. CONCLUSION: The patient preferences identified in this study support the need to include information on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation at implant, with change in clinical status and within broader discussions about end-of-life treatment preferences. Using this process to help patients determine and communicate their implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation preferences may reduce the number of patients experiencing distressing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks at end of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE Open MedicineSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207