Perceptions and observations of shared decision making during pediatric otolaryngology surgical consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Increased parental involvement in the decision-making process when considering elective surgeries for their children, termed shared decision-making (SDM), may lead to positive outcomes. The objective of this study was to describe perceived and observed levels of SDM during pediatric otolaryngology consultations. METHODS: One hundred and seventeen parents and their children undergoing elective surgical consultations were prospectively enrolled. The visits were videotaped and coded using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale. Following the encounter, all participants completed a questionnaire that measured perceived levels of SDM (SDM-Q-9). Surgeons also completed a similar questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc). Spearman's correlation coefficient was determined to measure the associations between observed and perceived levels of SDM. RESULTS: The overall OPTION scores were low (median score of 14 out of 48) and not significantly correlated with perceived levels of SDM (SDM-Q-9, p = 0.415; SDM-Q-Doc, p = 0.236), surgery type (p = 0.197), or patient demographic factors. The OPTION scores were positively correlated with consultation length (p < 0.001). There was great variability in the level to which each OPTION items were observed during the consultation (not present in any visits to present in 96.6% of the visits). CONCLUSIONS: Observed levels of SDM were consistently low, but higher levels were observed when the surgeon spent more time during the consultation. Observed levels of SDM did not match perceived levels of SDM, which were consistently rated higher by both caregivers and surgeons.
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 | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".