MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Qualitative Analysis of Patient Decisional Needs for Medications to Treat Heart Failure

2024· article· en· W4394014111 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ricky D. Turgeon, Saranee Fernando, Marc Bains, Jillianne Code, Nathaniel M. Hawkins, Sheri L. Koshman, Lynn Straatman, Mustafa Toma, Sean Virani, Blair J. MacDonald, M. Elizabeth Snow

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsDecision aidsPharmacotherapyThematic analysisHeart failureQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineGuidelineQualitative researchInformed consentPsychologyFamily medicineNursingInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The development of tools to support shared decision-making should be informed by patients' decisional needs and treatment preferences, which are largely unknown for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy decisions. We aimed to identify patients' decisional needs when considering HFrEF medication options. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. We recruited patients with HFrEF from 2 Canadian ambulatory HF clinics and clinicians from Canadian HF guideline panels, HF clinics, and Canadian HF Society membership. We identified themes through inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants included 15 patients and 12 clinicians. Six themes and associated subthemes emerged related to HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision-making: (1) patient decisional needs included lack of awareness of a choice or options, difficult decision timing and stage, information overload, and inadequate motivation, support and resources; (2) patients' decisional conflict varied substantially, driven by unclear trade-offs; (3) treatment attribute preferences-patients focused on both benefits and downsides of treatment, whereas clinicians centered discussion on benefits; (4) quality of life-patients' definition of quality of life depended on pre-HF activity, though most patients demonstrated adaptability in adjusting their daily activities to manage HF; (5) shared decision-making process-clinicians' described a process more akin to informed consent; (6) decision support-multimedia decision aids, virtual appointments, and primary-care comanagement emerged as potential enablers of shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF have several decisional needs, which are consistent with those that may respond to decision aids. These findings can inform the development of HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision aids to address these decisional needs and facilitate shared 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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207