Shared Decision Making in Hallux Valgus Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-physician communication has the potential to improve outcomes and satisfaction through the shared decision-making process (SDM). This study aims to assess the relationship between perception of SDM and demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing Hallux Valgus (HV) correction. A prospective analysis of 306 patients scheduled for HV surgery was completed. The CollaboRATE score was used to measure SDM. Multivariable linear regression model was used to assess whether SDM scores were associated with preoperative characteristics or postoperative outcome scores. The mean CollaboRATE score was 2.9 (SD 0.9) and did not differ by age, socioeconomic status, or sex. Lower CollaboRATE scores were associated with more symptoms of depression, lower socioeconomic status, and lower general health scores (p-value < 0.05). There was no association between SDM scores and postoperative outcome scores. In this study, patients with depressive symptoms and lower socioeconomic status had worse perceptions of SDM. There was no difference in postoperative outcomes among participants based on SDM scores. Level of Evidence: Level III, prospective observational study
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".