MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3129161868 · doi:10.1002/acr.24579

Decision Needs and Preferred Strategies for Shared <scp>Decision‐Making</scp> in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Perspectives of Canadian Urban Indigenous Women

2021· article· en· W3129161868 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Valerie Umaefulam, Terri‐Lynn Fox, Cheryl Barnabé

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsIndigenousRheumatoid arthritisMedicineImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Decision-making for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is complex, with multiple beneficial medication options available, but with the potential for treatment-related adverse effects and significant economic considerations. Indigenous patients make treatment decisions informed by an interplay of clinical, family, and societal factors. Shared decision-making may represent an approach to support treatment decisions in a culturally congruent manner. Our objective was to identify aspects of arthritis care that Indigenous participants found relevant for shared decision-making and to explore preferences for shared decision-making strategies. METHODS: A purposive sampling from rheumatology clinics that provide services to Indigenous patients in a Canadian urban center was used to recruit participants for interviews. Seven participants were recruited to reach content saturation. Interview content was coded by 2 individuals, including an Indigenous patient with RA, and the data were analyzed via thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants were all women ages 37-61 years living with RA. Participants supported the idea that shared decision-making would be beneficial, primarily to support decisions around treatment plans and medication changes. Shared decision-making approaches would need to reflect Indigenous-specific content areas, such as benefits and risks of therapy informed by data from Indigenous patient populations and inclusion of traditional modes of healing. All participants were interested in having a decision coach and preferred that decision aids be in both paper and electronic formats for accessibility. CONCLUSION: This study advances knowledge in the priority areas and specific content needed in the shared decision-making process and the preferences of shared decision-making strategies relevant and appropriate for urban Indigenous women living with RA in Canada.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0280.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.295 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & Research→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→