MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766845479 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-790-0-263

Shared Decision Making Interventions: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence with Implications for Health Literacy

2017· article· en· W2766845479 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Stacey, Sophie Hill, Kirsten McCaffery, Laura Boland, Krystina B. Lewis, Lidia Horvat

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionHealth literacyEmpirical evidenceLiteracyEmpirical researchPsychologyComputer scienceManagement scienceKnowledge managementHealth carePolitical scienceEpistemologyEconomicsPsychiatryPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basic health literacy is required for making health decisions. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the use of shared decision making interventions for supporting patient involvement in making health decisions. The chapter provides a definition of shared decision making and discusses the link between shared decision making and the three levels of health literacy: functional, communicative/interactive, and critical. The Interprofessional Shared Decision Making Model is used to identify the various players involved: the patient, the family/surrogate/significant others, decision coach, and health care professionals. When patients are involved in shared decision making, they have better health outcomes, better healthcare experiences, and likely lower costs. Yet, their degree of involvement is influenced by their level of health literacy. Interventions to facilitate shared decision making are patient decision aids, decision coaching, and question prompt lists. Patient decision aids have been shown to improve knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and chosen options congruent with patients' values. Decision coaching improves knowledge and patient satisfaction. Question prompts also improve satisfaction. When shared decision making interventions have been evaluated with patients presumed to have lower health literacy, they appeared to be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups compared to those with higher literacy or better socioeconomic status. However, special attention needs to be applied when designing these interventions for populations with lower literacy. Two case exemplars are provided to illustrate the design and choice of interventions to better support patients with varying levels of health literacy. Despite evidence indicating these interventions are effective for involving patients in shared decision making, few are used in routine clinical practice. To increase their uptake, implementation strategies need to overcome barriers interfering with their use. Implementation strategies include training health care professionals, adopting SDM interventions that target patients, such as patient decision aids, and monitor patients' decisional comfort using the SURE test. Integrating health literacy principles is important when developing interventions that facilitate shared decision making and essential to avoid inadvertently producing higher inequalities between patients with varying levels of health literacy.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations88
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207