Impact of a hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid on treatment decision making: A randomized controlled trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPatient decision aids are tools that facilitate shared decision making when clinical evidence and patient values and preferences inform the process. Evidence-based guidelines have been developed for clinicians in hidradenitis suppurativa management. To address treatment decision-making needs of hidradenitis suppurativa patients, we developed a hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of the hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid during treatment decision making.MethodsAn online, participant-blinded, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial of the hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid versus Mayo Clinic hidradenitis suppurativa website content (Mayo) was conducted with hidradenitis suppurativa patients. Outcomes were knowledge, decisional conflict, and preparation for decision making.ResultsForty participants fulfilled inclusion criteria and were randomized to hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid or Mayo. In the hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid group, data from 16 and 15 participants were analyzed at phases 1 and 2, respectively. In the Mayo group, data from 15 and 13 participants were analyzed at phases 1 and 2, respectively. Increased knowledge (P < .01) and preparation for decision making (P < .01), as well as reduced decisional conflict (P < .01), were observed in the hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid compared with the Mayo group.LimitationsThe online methodology and recruitment from online hidradenitis suppurativa support groups limits generalizability of findings.ConclusionA hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid increased knowledge and preparation for decision making and reduced decisional conflict. Patient decision aids are tools that facilitate shared decision making when clinical evidence and patient values and preferences inform the process. Evidence-based guidelines have been developed for clinicians in hidradenitis suppurativa management. To address treatment decision-making needs of hidradenitis suppurativa patients, we developed a hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid. To assess the efficacy of the hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid during treatment decision making. An online, participant-blinded, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial of the hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid versus Mayo Clinic hidradenitis suppurativa website content (Mayo) was conducted with hidradenitis suppurativa patients. Outcomes were knowledge, decisional conflict, and preparation for decision making. Forty participants fulfilled inclusion criteria and were randomized to hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid or Mayo. In the hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid group, data from 16 and 15 participants were analyzed at phases 1 and 2, respectively. In the Mayo group, data from 15 and 13 participants were analyzed at phases 1 and 2, respectively. Increased knowledge (P < .01) and preparation for decision making (P < .01), as well as reduced decisional conflict (P < .01), were observed in the hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid compared with the Mayo group. The online methodology and recruitment from online hidradenitis suppurativa support groups limits generalizability of findings. A hidradenitis suppurativa patient decision aid increased knowledge and preparation for decision making and reduced decisional conflict.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it