Examining chronic care patient preferences for involvement in health‐care decision making: the case of Parkinson's disease patients in a patient‐centred clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-centred care is a recommended model of care for Parkinson's disease (PD). It aims to provide care that is respectful and responsive to patient preferences, values and perspectives. Provision of patient-centred care should entail considering how patients want to be involved in their care. OBJECTIVE: To understand the participation preferences of patients with PD from a patient-centred care clinic in health-care decision-making processes. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Mixed-methods study with early-stage Parkinson's disease patients from a patient-centred care clinic. Study involved a modified Autonomy Preference Index survey (N=65) and qualitative, semi-structured in-depth interviews, analysed using thematic qualitative content analysis (N=20, purposefully selected from survey participants). Interviews examined (i) the patient preferences for involvement in health-care decision making; (ii) patient perspectives on the patient-physician relationship; and (iii) patient preferences for communication of information relevant to decision making. RESULTS: Preferences for participation in decision making varied between individuals and also within individuals depending on decision type, relational and contextual factors. Patients had high preferences for communication of information, but with acknowledged limits. The importance of communication in the patient-physician relationship was emphasized. DISCUSSION: Patient preferences for involvement in decision making are dynamic and support shared decision making. Relational autonomy corresponds to how patients envision their participation in decision making. Clinicians may need to assess patient preferences on an on-going basis. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the complexities of decision-making processes. Improved understanding of individual preferences could enhance respect for persons and make for patient-centred care that is truly respectful of individual patients' wants, needs and values.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".