Development of a patient decision aid on inhaled corticosteroids use for adults with asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PDAs) are used in shared decision making to improve practitioner-patient communication and help patients decide about treatment options. To develop a PDA for adults with asthma considering inhaled corticosteroids, with or without long-acting beta2-agonists, to optimize asthma control. METHODS: The PDA was developed based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Step 1: PDA was drafted. Step 2: PDA acceptability was assessed among target users, certified asthma educators (CAEs) and adults with asthma, following an iterative process. a) Participants read the PDA, b) rated its presentation, length, balance, and perceived usefulness, indicated what they liked/disliked about it, and made suggestions for improvement. c) Based on results from (b), PDA was refined. This process was repeated with new participants until no suggestions were made. Step 3: The PDA was field tested with target users. Interviews with CAEs were conducted to identify areas of improvement. Step 4: Final PDA version was written. RESULTS: A color-printed, 4-page, letter-sized PDA was drafted. Acceptability testing involved 11 CAEs (women, n = 10) and 20 adults with asthma (women, n = 13; age 22-61 years). Five successive refined versions were produced. Major changes were made to PDA terminology, instructions, paper size, and visual presentation. Two CAEs (women, n = 2) and 26 adults with asthma (women, n = 19; age 20-65 years) field tested PDA. Minor changes were made to language and instructions to ensure usability. The final version was a color-printed, 12-page, A3-sized booklet. CONCLUSION: Our newly developed PDA was found acceptable and usable in target users.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".