MP44-14 PATIENT-CENTERED RECONSTRUCTION AND EVALUATION OF PROSTATE CANCER INFORMATION MATERIALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making III (MP44)1 Apr 2019MP44-14 PATIENT-CENTERED RECONSTRUCTION AND EVALUATION OF PROSTATE CANCER INFORMATION MATERIALS Alexander E Kiciak*, Andrew Dawson, Thomas Dymond, Michael J Leveridge, D. Robert Siemens, and Jason P Izard Alexander E Kiciak*Alexander E Kiciak* More articles by this author , Andrew DawsonAndrew Dawson More articles by this author , Thomas DymondThomas Dymond More articles by this author , Michael J LeveridgeMichael J Leveridge More articles by this author , D. Robert SiemensD. Robert Siemens More articles by this author , and Jason P IzardJason P Izard More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556257.33130.ebAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Canadian Urological Association (CUA) publishes freely accessible patient information materials (PIM) on a range of urological issues including prostate cancer. Previous work has established that the prostate cancer PIM are written at a grade 11 reading level which may be too complex for low literacy patients. We sought to directly compare the standard CUA PIM to a reconstructed patient-centred PIM. METHODS: PIM covering radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer were rewritten in a simplified format to enhance readability. The final format reflected a 6th grade reading level and was published in a graphical format identical to the original PIM to avoid bias. Patients who had undergone previous treatment for localized prostate cancer or were on active surveillance were recruited from Kingston Health Sciences Centre. Participants evaluated both ″standard″ and ″patient-centred″ formats of both RP and RT topics. PIM formats and topics were randomized in order of presentation. We collected demographic, educational and disease specific details of our participants. Health literacy was assessed using the REALM-SF. Semi-structured interviews were used to obtain qualitative feedback on all PIM. Participants were asked to score the PIM formats on a Likert scale with respect to usefulness, comprehension and preference of one format over the other. RESULTS: There were 61 participants with complete information for analysis. The median age of participants was 70 years (50-86) with a median REALM-SF score of 7 (5-7) and 62% (38/61) had at least some college or university education. Patients had been treated with surgery (35/61), radiation (24/61) and active surveillance (18/61). Usefulness ratings were high for all PIM format but did not vary statistically between formats (p = 0.84). Comprehension ratings were significantly higher in the patient-centred PIM (p<0.01). Preference for PIM format did not reach statistical significance (p=0.32 for RP; p =0.19 for RT). However, within the qualitative feedback 16% of patients commented without prompting that the language within the standard PIM was too complex. Participants also expressed the desire for more information regarding care after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within this group of highly educated participants with high health literacy, a simplified written structure improves patient comprehension ratings of informational materials. Future work will focus on revising the informational content of our PIM in an iterative format based on participant feedback. Source of Funding: This project was sponsored by a research grant from the Canadian Urological Association Scholarship Foundation. Kingston, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e634-e634 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Alexander E Kiciak* More articles by this author Andrew Dawson More articles by this author Thomas Dymond More articles by this author Michael J Leveridge More articles by this author D. Robert Siemens More articles by this author Jason P Izard More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.267 | 0.063 |
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".