MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 17354: A Canadian Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial for a Decision Support Intervention in de novo Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Candidates - Main findings

2015· article· en· W4230554112 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra Carroll, Michael McGillion, Dawn Stacey, Jeff S. Healey, Gary Foster, Sarah Hutchings, Heather M. Arthur, Gina Browne, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of OttawaPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Decision aidsFamily medicineNursingAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Patient decision aids (PtDA) support quality decision making and improve patient reported outcomes. This pilot randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the use of an ICD specific PtDA on patient’s decisional conflict and ICD knowledge. Methods: In accordance with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), a PtDA was developed. We conducted a single-centre non-blinded RCT with concealed allocation to evaluate the effect of a PtDA in patients offered an ICD for primary prevention. Exclusions: 1) inability to read English and complete a PtDA, 2) ICD for secondary prevention, 3) biventricular devices. Consented patients were randomized to 1) usual care, 2) PtDA intervention. Prior to specialist consultation the PtDA intervention group received the PtDA. The primary outcome of decisional conflict was measured before consultation and post-ICD implantation. The decisional conflict scale measures patient’s perception of difficultly making a decision, uncertainty regarding the decision and factors contributing to uncertainty. Higher scores are indicative of greater decisional conflict. Knowledge was measured as a secondary outcome using 5 questions related to ICD treatment, benefits and risks. Results: Eighty-two patients were randomized to usual care (n=41) or PtDA intervention (n=41). Mean age (SD) was 66.76 (11.05), 27% female. Baseline characteristics between groups were balanced. Patients receiving the PtDA intervention scored significantly lower on the DCS scale with a total mean score of 27.32 (18.37) when compared to usual care, scoring 49.53 (18.62) (p<0.0001). This difference remained post implantation, 21.16 (11.71) PtDA intervention, 29.89 (13.32) usual care, (p=0.0041)). The PtDA intervention group were more knowledgeable, with 47.50% scoring greater than 3/5 of the knowledge questions correct, compared to 23.09% receiving usual care (p=0.023). Conclusion: The results of this pilot study suggest that use of an ICD-specific PtDA reduced patient’s decisional conflict both pre and post implantation and improved knowledge. In the context of making decisions regarding life prolonging interventions, our findings suggest evidence based decision support results in improved patient decision quality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→