MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966994690 · doi:10.1177/0272989x19868193

Are Patient Decision Aids Used in Clinical Practice after Rigorous Evaluation? A Survey of Trial Authors

2019· article· en· W2966994690 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dawn Stacey, Victoria Suwalska, Laura Boland, Krystina B. Lewis, Justin Presseau, Richard Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDecision aidsPsychological interventionMedicineDescriptive statisticsGovernment (linguistics)Family medicineHealth careAlternative medicineNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are effective interventions to support patient involvement in health care decisions, but there is little use in practice. Our study aimed to determine subsequent PtDA use in clinical practice following published randomized controlled trials. Design. A descriptive study using an e-mail-embedded questionnaire survey targeting authors of 133 trials included in Cochrane Reviews of PtDAs (106 authors). We classified PtDA level of use as a) implementation, defined as integrating within care processes; b) dissemination to target users with planned strategies; and c) diffusion, defined as passive, unplanned spread. We conducted content analysis to identify barriers and enablers guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use. Results. Ninety-eight authors responded (92.5%) on 108 trialed PtDAs. Reported levels of use were implementation ( n = 29; 28%), dissemination to target user(s) ( n = 9; 9%), and diffusion ( n = 7; 7%); 57 (55%) reported no uptake, and 1 had no response (1%). Barriers to use in clinical practice were identified at the level of researchers (e.g., lack of posttrial plan), PtDAs (e.g., outdated, delivery mechanism), clinicians (e.g., disagreed with PtDA use), and practice environment (e.g., infrastructure support; funding). Enablers were online delivery, organizational endorsement (e.g., professional organization, charity, government), and design for and integration into the care process. Limitations. Self-report bias and potential for recall bias. Conclusions. Only 44% of PtDA trial authors indicated some level of subsequent use following their trial. The most commonly reported barriers were lack of funding, outdated PtDAs, and clinician disagreement with PtDA use. To improve subsequent use, researchers should codesign PtDAs with end users to ensure fit with clinical practice and develop an implementation plan. National systems (e.g., platforms, endorsement, funding) can enable use.

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)0.533
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.850
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5330.850
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0130.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.193 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations121
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207