The emergency patient's participation in medical decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research was to explore the medical decision-making processes of patients in emergency departments. BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that patients should be given enough time to acquire relevant information and receive adequate support when they need to make medical decisions. It is difficult to satisfy these requirements in emergency situations. Limited research has addressed the topic of decision-making among emergency patients. DESIGN: This qualitative study used a broadly defined grounded theory approach to explore decision-making in an emergency department in Taiwan. METHODS: Thirty emergency patients were recruited between June and December 2011 for semi-structured interviews that were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. RESULTS: The study identified three stages in medical decision-making by emergency patients: predecision (interpreting the problem); decision (a balancing act) and postdecision (reclaiming the self). Transference was identified as the core category and pattern of behaviour through which patients resolved their main concerns. This transference around decision-making represents a type of bricolage. CONCLUSIONS: The findings fill a gap in knowledge about the decision-making process among emergency patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results inform emergency professionals seeking to support patients faced with complex medical decision-making and suggest an emphasis on informed patient decision-making, advocacy, patient-centred care and in-service education of health staff.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".