Shared decision-making for pediatric elective penile surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In pediatric surgery, proxy decision-makers are frequently involved in treatment planning and may experience decisional conflict (DC). Shared decision-making (SDM) approaches may be effective to remedy DC. This study investigates DC and SDM involvement in elective pediatric penile surgery. METHODS: Forty-four parents of children aged <8 years undergoing elective penile surgery consultations at a tertiary pediatric hospital were prospectively enrolled. Patient and physician questionnaires were used to assess the SDM process and the SURE (Sure of myself; Understand information; Risk-benefit ratio; Encouragement) screening test was used to assess DC. RESULTS: Thirty-seven (84.1%) mothers and seven (15.9%) fathers were enrolled for circumcision (n=33, 75.0%) and distal hypospadias repair (n=11, 25.0%) consultations, with 21 (47.7%) choosing to proceed with surgery. Seven (15.9%) participants experienced clinically significant DC. Participant gender was not associated with higher levels of DC (p=0.318). The average patient and physician SDM scores were 88.2±10.0 and 85.3±7.4, respectively, with no correlation found between participant and physician perception of SDM involvement (p=0.168, p=0.276). DC was significantly associated with lower participant and physician ratings of SDM. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high perception of SDM involvement by both parents and pediatric urologists regarding elective penile surgery. Of the 15% of parents experiencing DC, there was an association with lower participant and physician levels of SDM involvement. Despite high SDM scores overall, discrepancies exist between the perceived physician and participant SDM involvement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".