MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13114: Effectiveness of a Novel Decision Aid for Surrogate Decision Makers of Comatose Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Pilot Study of the “Tool to EMPOwer Surrogate Decision Makers” (TEMPO)

2021· article· en· W4200532770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah M. Perman, Shelby K. Shelton, Bonnie Siry‐Bove, Katherine Mayer, Daniel D. Matlock, Jason S. Haukoos, Benjamin S. Abella, Stacie L. Daugherty, Edward P. Havranek

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)SpouseDecision aidsFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Surrogate decision makers (SDMs) represent critical stakeholders in decision making for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest, yet these individuals are often unprepared for decision making and unfamiliar with the complexity of post-cardiac arrest care. To that end, we created a decision aid for SDMs intended to inform and support evidence-based decision making for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. Methods: We conducted a pilot trial to measure real world effectiveness of the Tool to EMPOwer (TEMPO) Surrogate Decision Makers, by measuring knowledge and acceptability. Individuals were enrolled who self-identified as the SDM for a comatose survivor of OHCA admitted to an academic tertiary care hospital. Participants completed a pre-intervention survey prior to the provision of TEMPO, and a post-intervention survey approximately 24 hours after exposure to the intervention. Pre-survey questions included SDM demographics and an 8-question knowledge survey. Post-intervention surveys included the same knowledge questions, the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Aid tool, and questions to measure if SDMs shared TEMPO with others. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board and registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03908346). Results: Twenty SDMs were enrolled between 9/1/2020 and 6/7/2021. One subject did not complete the post-intervention survey therefore 19 subject responses were analyzed for the purpose of this report. Participants were 85.0% Female, 47.4 +/- 14.8 years, and 45.0% were the spouse of the patient. In the 8-question knowledge survey, results improved from 57.2% correct to 90.8% correct after exposure to TEMPO (p<0.001). Using the Ottawa Acceptability Tool, 89.5% of participants stated TEMPO was useful in decision-making and 94.7% reported that TEMPO made their decision “easier”. Most (79.0%) participants reported they shared the DA with another family/friend in-person, while some (52.6%) reported they shared content with another person by telephone. Conclusion: Initial pilot data on the efficacy of the Tool to EMPOwer Surrogate Decision Makers of comatose survivors of cardiac arrest shows significant promise in improving knowledge and supporting decision-making.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→