MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388719838 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.5588

Decisional Stakes and Patient-Provider Incongruence during Shared Decision Making: A Family Medicine Resident Perspective

2023· article· en· W4388719838 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amrita Sandhu, Roland Grad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Situational ethicsPsychologyDescriptive statisticsFamily medicineMedical educationMedicineApplied psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Training in shared decision-making (SDM) typically occurs during postgraduate medical education. In their practice, residents will experience situations of patient-provider incongruence regarding next steps to care. Little is known about resident comfort in providing care when patient perspectives misalign with their own during SDM. Objective(s): (i) Assess how Family Medicine (FM) resident perceptions of situational stakes influences their comfort providing care when faced with patient incongruence and (ii) describe what FM residents consider to be high versus low stakes situations for engaging in SDM with patients. Study Design and Data Analysis: Sequential explanatory mixed methods. Quantitative: Descriptive statistics on a 7-item measure of willingness to engage in SDM completed by XX residents. Qualitative: Using extreme case-sampling of quantitative results, we conducted a content analysis of 16 resident interviews about what they considered to be high versus low stakes situations for SDM and how this affected their comfort when providing care in the context of patient-provider incongruence. Integration: Quantitative and qualitative results were compared and combined. Setting: McGill University Department of Family Medicine, Montreal. Population: First year FM residents who attended an academic-half day session about SDM. Intervention/Instrument: IncorpoRATE, a 7-item measure of physician willingness to engage in SDM, where items were rated from 0-10. Outcome Measures: 1. Willingness to engage in SDM. 2. Comfort with SDM across high and low stakes situations of perceived incongruence between patient and provider. Results: Residents were generally willing to engage in SDM (insert IncorpoRATE mean score + SD). Residents expressed higher comfort with incongruent patient choice when the stakes were perceived as low (7.59 [2.01]) versus high (4.38 [2.47]). Qualitative findings revealed variation in types of decisions residents considered to be at low and high stakes for SDM. For some decisions e.g., prostate specific antigen testing to screen for prostate cancer, we observed a lack of consensus as to whether this was high or low stakes. Factors that increased or decreased resident comfort with patient incongruence were patient health literacy, perceived consequences, involvement of proxy decision makers, administrative and legal concerns, and perceived therapeutic alliance. Conclusions: Residents are less comfortable with incongruent patient pre

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→