MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200258462 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055455

Study protocol for a randomised clinical trial of a decision aid and values clarification method for parents of a fetus or neonate diagnosed with a life-threatening congenital heart defect

2021· article· en· W4200258462 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca K. Delaney, Nelangi M. Pinto, Elissa M. Ozanne, Louisa A. Stark, Mandy L. Pershing, Alistair Thorpe, Holly O. Witteman, Praveen Thokala, Linda M. Lambert, Lisa M. Hansen, Tom Greene, Angela Fagerlin

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of UtahNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Decision aidsRandomized controlled trialDistressObservational studyProtocol (science)Clinical trialPediatricsFamily medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryNursingAlternative medicinePathologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Parents who receive the diagnosis of a life-threatening, complex heart defect in their fetus or neonate face a difficult choice between pursuing termination (for fetal diagnoses), palliative care or complex surgical interventions. Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended in clinical contexts where there is clinical equipoise. SDM can be facilitated by decision aids. The International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration recommends the inclusion of values clarification methods (VCMs), yet little evidence exists concerning the incremental impact of VCMs on patient or surrogate decision making. This protocol describes a randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effect of a decision aid (with and without a VCM) on parental mental health and decision making within a clinical encounter. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Parents who have a fetus or neonate diagnosed with one of six complex congenital heart defects at a single tertiary centre will be recruited. Data collection for the prospective observational control group was conducted September 2018 to December 2020 (N=35) and data collection for two intervention groups is ongoing (began October 2020). At least 100 participants will be randomised 1:1 to two intervention groups (decision aid only vs decision aid with VCM). For the intervention groups, data will be collected at four time points: (1) at diagnosis, (2) postreceipt of decision aid, (3) postdecision and (4) 3 months postdecision. Data collection for the control group was the same, except they did not receive a survey at time 2. Linear mixed effects models will assess differences between study arms in distress (primary outcome), grief and decision quality (secondary outcomes) at 3-month post-treatment decision. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. Study findings have and will continue to be presented at national conferences and within scientific research journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04437069 (Pre-results).

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0120.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1710.031

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 head0.641
GPT teacher head0.649
Teacher spread0.008 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207