MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383709926 · doi:10.1177/0272989x231182436

Shared Decision Making for Elective Surgical Procedures in Older Adults with and without Cognitive Insufficiencies

2023· article· en· W4383709926 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ha Vo, Brittney Mancini, Richard D. Urman, Franchesca Arias, Michael J. Barry, Karen Sepucha

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsRegretCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineScale (ratio)Cognitive testPhysical therapyCognitive impairmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Older adults are prone to cognitive impairment, which may affect their ability to engage in aspects of shared decision making (SDM) and their ability to complete surveys about the SDM process. This study examined the surgical decision-making processes of older adults with and without cognitive insufficiencies and evaluated the psychometric properties of the SDM Process scale. Methods Eligible patients were 65 y or older and scheduled for a preoperative appointment before elective surgery (e.g., arthroplasty). One week before the visit, staff contacted patients via phone to administer the baseline survey, including the SDM Process scale (range 0–4), SURE scale (top scored), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test version 8.1 BLIND English (MoCA-blind; score range 0–22; scores < 19 indicate cognitive insufficiency). Patients completed a follow-up survey 3 mo after their visit to assess decision regret (top scored) and retest reliability for the SDM Process scale. Results Twenty-six percent (127/488) of eligible patients completed the survey; 121 were included in the analytic data set, and 85 provided sufficient follow-up data. Forty percent of patients ( n = 49/121) had MoCA-blind scores indicating cognitive insufficiencies. Overall SDM Process scores did not differ by cognitive status (intact cognition [Formula: see text] = 2.5, s = 1.0 v. cognitive insufficiencies [Formula: see text] = 2.5, s = 1.0; P = 0.80). SURE top scores were similar across groups (83% intact cognition v. 90% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.43). While patients with intact cognition had less regret, the difference was not statistically significant (92% intact cognition v. 79% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.10). SDM Process scores had low missing data and good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.7). Conclusions Reported SDM, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. The SDM Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of SDM in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. Highlights Forty percent of patients 65 y or older who were scheduled for elective surgery had scores indicative of cognitive insufficiencies. Patient-reported shared decision making, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. The Shared Decision Making Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of shared decision making in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207