150 Uncertainty communication in caregivers of children with neuromuscular scoliosis: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Introduction</h3> Surgical treatment is the only definitive treatment to halt the progression of neuromuscular scoliosis (NMS) but is associated with complication rates of 17–40%. Caregivers experience considerable uncertainty during decision-making. This study aims to identify topics for which uncertainty is a concern to caregivers and how caregivers interpret that uncertainty. <h3>Methods</h3> From two quaternary children’s hospitals, we recruited English- and Spanish-speaking adult caregivers of children aged 8–21 years with NMS who had previously decided whether to treat their child’s NMS with surgery. Caregivers completed an audio-recorded 45–60 minute semi-structured interview about uncertainty related to NMS treatment decisions. Two independent coders used thematic analysis of interview transcripts to inductively generate themes and serial coding reviews to generate agreement. Team meetings synthesized final themes. Subsequently, themes were categorized into an existing taxonomy of sources of uncertainty: probability, ambiguity, and complexity.<sup>1</sup> <h3>Results</h3> From n=45 interviews, we identified six topical areas of uncertainty: right time for surgery, rate of NMS progression, benefits and risks of surgery, risks of non-surgical management, and effects of underlying comorbidities (see table 1 for quotes). The effects of comorbidities was the most commonly mentioned uncertainty, and the only uncertainty for which caregivers served as the information source rather than providers. Except for treatment risks and benefits, caregivers interpreted most uncertainty as arising from ambiguity or complexity. <h3>Discussion</h3> Clinical encounters should better address how underlying comorbidities affect the risks and benefits of NMS treatment options. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Successful strategies to communicate uncertainties from ambiguity and complexity are needed to address this issue. <h3>Reference</h3> Han PJK, Klein WMP, Arora NK. <i>Med Decis Making.</i> 2011;<b>311</b>(6):828–838.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".