MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Developing a decision support tool for responding to patients’ reported levels of information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness.

2014· article· en· W2566155228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liesbeth van Vliet, Richard Harding, Claudia Bausewein, Sheila Payne, Irene J Higginson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialPsychological interventionAnxietyNiceMEDLINEGuidelineDelphi methodCoping (psychology)Palliative careFamily medicineSystematic reviewPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

173 Background: Routine clinical use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) such as the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) may be prevented by a lack of guidance on how to respond to reported symptoms. When using POS in clinical care, clinicians encounter the most difficulties with responding to information needs, depression and family anxiety while breathlessness remains a difficult to treat symptom. We aimed to create a Decision Support Tool (DST) on how to respond to different levels of these patient-reported symptoms. Methods: A systematic search for guidelines and systematic reviews on these topics was conducted (in Pubmed, Cochrane and York DARE databases, Googlescholar, NICE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Canadian Medical Association, Google.com). In a two-round online Delphi study purposefully sampled international experts (clinicians, researchers, patient representatives) judged the appropriateness (1-9 scale + do not know option) of drafted recommendations for each POS answer category (0-4) and provided qualitative remarks. Recommendations with a median of 7-9 and <30% of scores between 1-3 and 7-9 were included in the DST. Quality was assessed using an adapted GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-five out of 38 (66%) experts participated in round 1, 23 out of 37 (62%) in round 2. Higher POS scores were related to more included recommendations. The DST consists of both a manual and flow-charts of included recommendations for each topic. Overall, psychosocial interventions were recommended for lower levels of depression and breathlessness than drug interventions (e.g., goal-setting/coping versus morphine for breathlessness). Good communication and emotional support were recommended for low family anxiety levels, but a social needs assessment only for higher levels. For information needs recommendations were least discriminative; almost all recommendations (e.g., assess patients’ understanding of information, show empathy) seemed always relevant. Conclusions: The developed DST can assist clinical responses to patient-reported symptoms in palliative care. Future work is needed to test the effect of using the DST on patients’ 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 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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→