180 Professionals’ receptivity to the use of decision aids to promote healthy aging. A qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Given the limited resources for counselling older adults about healthy aging, we aimed to identify healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and community organization representatives’ (CORs) perspectives on integrating shared decision-making (SDM) into their practice. Methods Guided by the SRQR checklist, our descriptive qualitative study involved developing seven decision aids (DAs), each addressing a key aspect of health: memory, social life, mobility, nutrition, mood, self-care and sleep. HCPs and CORs were recruited through our partnerships with practice organisations. The inclusion criterion was working with older adults. In individual videoconference interviews, participants underwent a think-aloud procedure while reviewing one randomly assigned DA. They then answered open-ended questions about the DA’s relevance to their practice. The interviews were video-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed by three researchers, following Stiggelbout & al.’s four- step SDM approach: 1) informing that a decision has to be made; 2) explaining the options; 3) discussing the patient’s preferences; 4) making or deferring the decision. Results 14 HCPs and 12 CORs participated until data saturation was achieved. By reviewing the DA, they developed an understanding of the SDM process. While appreciating the awareness-raising intention regarding step 1, participants expressed concerns about potentially discouraging healthy behavior through disadvantages presentation (step 2). For step 3, they appreciated the personalized approach to clarify older adults’ priorities. However, confusion arose about step 4 regarding the limitation for older adults to select only one option from those presented in the DA. Discussion The empowering and person-centred approach of the DAs, aligning with participants’ goals, may foster SDM integration into their practice. However, presenting the disadvantages of the options differs from their preconceptions regarding public health interventions. Conclusion Integrating SDM into HCPs and ROCs’ practice seems feasible to empower older adults to engage in discussions about their health choices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".