Development and validation of a novel informational booklet for pediatric long‐term ventilation decision support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide accessible, uniform, comprehensive, and balanced information to families deciding whether to initiate long-term ventilation (LTV) for their child, we sought to develop and validate a novel informational resource. METHODS: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework was followed. Previous interviews with 44 lay and 15 professional stakeholders and published literature provided content for a booklet. Iterative versions were cognitive tested with six parents facing decisions and five pediatric intensivists. Ten parents facing decisions evaluated the booklet using the Preparation for Decision Making Scale and reported their decisional conflict, which was juxtaposed to the conflict of 21 parents who did not read it, using the Decisional Conflict Scale. Twelve home ventilation program directors evaluated the booklet's clinical sensibility and sensitivity, using a self-designed six-item questionnaire. Data presented using summary statistics. RESULTS: The illustrated booklet (6th-grade reading level) has nine topical sections on chronic respiratory failure and invasive and noninvasive LTV, including the option to forgo LTV. Ten parents who read the booklet rated it as helping "Quite a bit" or more on all items of the Preparation for Decision Making Scale and had seemingly less decisional conflict than 21 parents who did not. Twelve directors rated it highly for clinical sensibility and sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The LTV booklet was rigorously developed and favorably evaluated. It offers a resource to improve patient/family knowledge, supplement shared decision-making, and reduce decisional conflict around LTV decisions. Future studies should validate it in other settings and further study its effectiveness.
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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".