MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389248690 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.1597

Patient values and preferences regarding communicating risk versus benefit of benzodiazepine initiation: A cross‐sectional survey study

2023· article· en· W4389248690 on OpenAlexaff
Karn Chahal, Matthew Glass, Jamie Falk, Alexander Singer, Christine Leong

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenzodiazepineAnxietyRisk perceptionHarmLikert scaleInsomniaCognitionPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyFamily medicinePerceptionSocial psychologyInternal medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aims: Communicating information about the risks and benefits of benzodiazepines so that it is meaningful to the patient has not been previously described. This study aims to determine patient preferences regarding information received before initiating a benzodiazepine. Methods: An online survey was distributed through social media and advertisements to Canadians ≥18 years old over a 6-month period (May-Oct 2022) to collect participant's rating of importance of statements and factors about the risk and benefits of benzodiazepines before initiating treatment using a 10-point Likert-type scale. Treatment preferences based on efficacy and risk information were also elicited. The survey was developed and pilot-tested in collaboration with an advisory committee of individuals with lived and living experience with benzodiazepine use. Results: Thirty-seven participants responded to the survey (mean age 30 years old, 81.1% identified as female). The majority of respondents had a history of anxiety (83.8%) or insomnia (32.4%), and 10 (27.0%) respondents had used a benzodiazepine. Patient counseling related to withdrawal symptoms of benzodiazepines, risk of harm in combination with other sedating agents, risk of physical and psychological dependence, and risk of effects on cognition were rated high in the importance of receiving this information before starting a benzodiazepine relative to efficacy endpoints, such as improvement in sleep parameters. When provided with information about the chance of efficacy and risk of harm, 100% would have selected cognitive behavioral therapy as the best treatment option. The most frequently reported source of medication information where patients have sought information was from the internet (25.0%), followed by doctors (21.9%) and pharmacists (18.8%). Conclusions: This study identified patient important factors and statements viewed as important to communicate before initiating a benzodiazepine. The findings of this survey study will help inform decision-making when considering treatment options for managing anxiety or insomnia.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Science ReportsSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207