MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318262892 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2488592/v1

Assessment of the DASH-TOP Shared decision-making intervention using the decisional conflict scale: A mixed- method study

2023· preprint· en· W4318262892 on OpenAlexaff
Montserrat León‐García, Brittany Humphries, Pablo Roca, Derek Gravholt, Mark H. Eckman, Shannon M. Bates, Nataly R. Espinoza Suárez, Feng Xie, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Lilisbeth Perestelo‐Pérez

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona
KeywordsDashIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionCategorizationScale (ratio)MedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and death. The use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), despite being the standard of care to prevent VTE, comes with some challenges. Shared decision-making (SDM) interventions are recommended to support patients and clinicians in making preference-sensitive decisions. The quality of the SDM process has been widely assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Our aim is to report participants’ perspectives of each of the components of an SDM intervention (DASH-TOP) in relation to the different subscales of the DCS. Methods Design: A convergent, parallel, mixed-methods design. Participants: The sample consisted of 22 health care professionals, students of an Applied Clinical Research in Health Sciences (ICACS) master program. Intervention: We randomly divided the participants in three groups: Group 1 received one component (evidence -based information), Group 2 received two components (first component and value elicitation exercises), and Group 3 received all three components (the first two and a decision analysis recommendation) of the SDM intervention. Analysis: For the quantitative strand, we used a non-parametric test to analyze the differences in the DCS subscales between the three groups. For the qualitative strand, we conducted a content analysis using the decisional conflict domains to deductively categorize the responses. Results Groups that received more intervention components experienced less conflict and better decision-making quality, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. The decision analysis recommendation improved the efficacy with the decision-making process, however there are some challenges when implementing it in clinical practice. The uncertainty subscale showed a high decisional conflict for all three groups; contributing factors included low certainty of the evidence-based information provided and a perceived small effect of the drug to reduce the risk of a VTE event. Conclusions The DASH-TOP intervention reduced decisional conflict in the decision -making process, with decision analysis being the most effective component to improve the quality of the decision. There is a need for more implementation research to improve the delivery of SDM interventions in the clinical encounter.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0010.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.408
GPT teacher head0.679
Teacher spread0.272 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207