Development and evaluation of a patient decision aid for pediatric interval appendectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: One option for the treatment of perforated appendicitis in pediatric patients is interval appendectomy (IA). A patient decision aid (PDA) can be useful in the decision-making process regarding IA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate parents' decisional conflict before and after engaging with a developed PDA. Methods: Participants included (a) parents who are considering IA surgery for their child, (b) have not yet had their follow-up appointment postdischarge, and (c) were fluent in either the official languages of English or French. This study used a pretest and post-test design to measure participants' decisional conflict and treatment option choice. Perceptions and acceptability of the PDA were also assessed. Results: A total of 18 participants completed the study (16 mothers). Major findings include significant decreases in all Decisional Conflict Scale items from pre-PDA to post-PDA engagement, except for one item. The majority of participants perceived the PDA to be useful, easy to find information regarding risks and provided enough information to help them make a decision regarding their child's treatment. Conclusions: This is the first study to develop and evaluate a PDA among parents who are making a decision regarding IA surgery. The results showed a significant decrease in decisional conflict after using the PDA. The results also showed that the PDA was generally accepted among parents and had positive perceptions regarding length, content, and balance. The use of PDA for this population can help ease feelings of decisional conflict and equip parents with the information to make informed decisions.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".