155 A systematic review of patients’ personal attributes when choosing maintenance compression therapy for chronic venous insufficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction An increasing number of people with chronic venous insufficiency have various options for maintenance compression therapy (MCT) including compression socks, custom adjustable Velcro compression devices, and in some situations elasticated tubular support bandages. However, there is limited research that compares the effectiveness of these different MCT options. The decision-making process is further complicated, by patient considerations like compression tolerance, functional limitations, and financial constraints, as well as the resources required to obtain or apply compression and professional-related factors such as skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Additionally, healthcare teams may recommend alternative compression garments if MCTs are challenging for the patient to put on or if the patient‘s condition or leg shape requires a different option. It is important to consider how patients perceive their options when making decisions about their healthcare. Our study aimed to improve decision support through decision aids and decision coaching. To design effective decision support interventions, our objective was to identify personal attributes that influenced patients’ decision-making regarding MCT. Method We conducted a systematic review of scientific papers and website publications from professional associations to identify the personal attributes that influence patients’ decision-making regarding MCT. Results No studies were found on the subject. However, 14 studies on barriers and facilitators to the use of MCT provided some information on personal attributes. Our analysis identified nine themes related to decision-making, including efficacy, the shape of the patient‘s leg, cost, product lifetime, ease of application, compression adjustment, comfort, aesthetics, and compatibility with footwear. Discussion This study is the first to identify a comprehensive set of personal attributes relative to choosing an MCT therapy. Conclusion These themes should be considered when designing decision support interventions, and further research is needed to better understand how patients perceive the various attributes of MCT.
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 | 0.017 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".