Caregiver Decisional Conflict Before and After Consultation About Gastrostomy Tube Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Families describe decision-making about gastrostomy tube (g-tube) placement as challenging. We measured caregiver decisional conflict before and after initial g-tube consultation to evaluate the potential benefit of a decision aid and feasibility in testing it. METHODS: Families presenting for initial consultation about g-tube placement completed the decisional conflict scale (DCS) at 1 or 2 of 3 time points: before consultation, after consultation, and after viewing a video. The decision support consultation was a 2-hour structured meeting with a pediatric hospitalist, nurse practitioner, and dietitian that was focused on clarifying the indication, feasibility, safety, and family values around tube placement. The video described decision-making and lived experiences of families with tube feeding. RESULTS: We measured the decisional conflict of 61 caregivers. Preconsultation decisional conflict scores were high (mean = 38.7), but there was substantial variation between families (SD = 19.4). Baseline scores did not vary between clinically relevant subgroups. Postconsultation DCS scores were lower (17.9 and SD = 13.5 for consult alone; 12.7 and SD = 13.2 for consult with video). Three caregivers (7.7%) of families had residual decisional conflict scores >37.5, the threshold conventionally associated with decision delay. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring decisional conflict among caregivers deciding about pediatric g-tube is feasible during the clinical encounter. Residual decisional conflict after our institution's current decision support consultation model (with or without an additional video) was low, so development of an additional structured decision aid is not warranted. Further study of preconsult DCS variability across different clinical subgroups may help identify families benefiting from additional decisional support.
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".