MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389939742 · doi:10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.288

Abstract 288: The Tool to Empower (TEMPO) Surrogate Decision Makers of Comatose Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Pilot Trial of a Novel Decision Tool

2023· article· en· W4389939742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah M. Perman, Shelby K. Shelton, Bonnie Siry‐Bove, Amanda Martinez, Daniel D. Matlock, Stacie L. Daugherty, Ed Havranek

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpousePsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Decision aidsNursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: OHCA is a sudden unexpected event that frequently renders patients incapable of decision-making. Surrogate decision makers are often thrust into the position of deciphering complex medical information while representing their loved one’s wishes with little support. Hypothesis: An evidence based, iteratively designed decision tool will be feasible to deploy, acceptable to surrogates, increase knowledge of post-cardiac arrest care and impart self-efficacy for decision making. Goal: To measure the efficacy of a novel decision aid for surrogates. Methods: We conducted a pilot trial of the T ool to EMPO wer (TEMPO) decision makers to examine feasibility, acceptability, knowledge, and self-efficacy. Surrogates were given a pre-intervention survey on the day of arrest, provided the tool and a post-intervention survey at least 24 hours later. The survey included an 8-question knowledge questionnaire. The post-interventions survey included the same knowledge questions, the Ottawa acceptability survey and a measure of self-efficacy for decision-making for the unconscious patient. Results: We enrolled 41 surrogates into the TEMPO Pilot Trial between 9/20 and 12/22. Subjects identified were predominantly women (75.6%, n=31), 53.7% were White, 22% Black and 24.4% Hispanic. Participants had varied relationships to the patient including spouse (44%), sibling (17%), adult child (17%) and parent (12%). Knowledge increased from 56.4% to 85.9%, an absolute improvement of 29.5%. Significant improvements were noted in self-efficacy in the following domains after exposure to TEMPO: 1) receipt of resuscitation; 2) care at the end-of-life; and 3) continued desire to fight the disease. Surrogates found the tool to be useful (84.6%) and that it made their choice easier (91.2%). One participant reported “I had never dealt with this and did not know what to expect so the information given was very helpful” and another stated “Now I know what type of questions to ask and what to look for.” Conclusion(s): In a pilot trial of TEMPO, a novel decision tool for surrogate decision makers of comatose survivors of cardiac arrest, we found the intervention was feasible, acceptable, improved knowledge and increased feelings of self-efficacy in decision making.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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 venueCirculation→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→