Role Incongruence and Psychological Stress Symptoms in Substitute Decision Makers of Intensive Care Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most intensive care patients require substitute decision makers (SDMs) to make decisions. The SDMs may prefer an active, shared, or passive decision-making role. Role incongruence is when preferred and actual roles differ. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of decision-making role preferences and role incongruence on psychological distress symptoms in SDMs. METHODS: A multicenter, interviewer-administered survey was conducted among SDMs of critically ill adults. The Control Preferences Scale was used to evaluate role preferences. Psychological distress was defined as anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress symptoms with predefined cut points on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (score > 10 on the anxiety or the depression subscale) and Impact of Events Scale (score > 30). RESULTS: One hundred eighty SDMs were recruited; 64% responded. Most were white (71%) and female (65%); 46% were spouses. Role preferences varied: active, 24%; shared, 44%; and passive, 31%. Almost half (49%) reported incongruence. Symptom prevalence was 50% for posttraumatic stress, 32% for anxiety, and 16% for depression. Most (56%) reported some psychological distress. In multivariable logistic regression, the composite outcome of psychological distress was independently associated with patient death (odds ratio, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.08-8.02; P = .03), female sex of SDM (odds ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.49-5.89; P = .002), and incongruence (odds ratio, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.67-6.36; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse psychological symptoms are prevalent in SDMs of critically ill patients and are related to role incongruence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".