The relationship between perceptions of shared decision‐making and patient‐reported outcomes in a cross‐sectional cohort of haemorrhoidectomy patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Shared decision-making between patients and clinicians is important to surgical practice and patients' perceptions of their healthcare experience. This study aims to measure associations between patients' perceptions of their shared decision-making (SDM) process and health-related quality of life among a cohort of patients choosing surgical management of an elective surgical procedure, haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: This study is a single-site study based in Vancouver, Canada. Consecutive patients of five colorectal surgeons registered for elective haemorrhoidectomy between September 2016 and June 2020 were eligible to participate. Participants completed the CollaboRATE instrument which measures patients' perceptions of their SDM after the surgical consultation, along with a number of other patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: The participation rate was 45.3%, with 157 patients scheduled for haemorrhoidectomy providing complete information. Unadjusted results found that participants having the most comorbidities reported better communication with their surgeon. The adjusted results show that socioeconomic status and depression were associated with lower CollaboRATE scores. There was no effect of sex, pain interference, anxiety or perceived health status on participants' CollaboRATE scores. CONCLUSION: This study found evidence that participants with lower economic status or those reporting depressive symptoms had worse perceptions of their SDM process with their surgeon. These findings suggest that special attention should be paid to the surgical decision-making process for these patient populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".