MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400453293 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-sdc.4

004 Co-designing a consult patient decision aid for deprescribing cholinesterase inhibitors

2024· article· en· W4400453293 on OpenAlexaff
Nagham Ailabouni, Wade Thompson, Sarah N. Hilmer, Q Lyntara, M Uirke Janet, Qcneece Alice Bourke, Chloe Furst, Emily Reeve

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeprescribingCholinesteraseComputer scienceMedicinePharmacologyPolypharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction People living with dementia take many medications, some of which may become high-risk, unnecessary, or ineffective as dementia progresses. Up to one third of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are continued for longer than appropriate. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping) these medications remains limited. Our aim was to co-design a consult patient decision aid (CPtDA) to support shared decision making between healthcare professionals and consumers to make decisions about deprescribing ChEIs. Methods A systematic process using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards to develop Patient Decision Aids was employed. Development involved assembling a steering group and defining the CPtDA’s purpose, scope, and target audience. Interviews with consumers and healthcare professionals were conducted to gain feedback on the content, format, structure, comprehensibility, and usability. Results A steering group composed of healthcare professional and consumer representatives was assembled. The group developed the draft prototype so that it was suitable for further testing. Interviews were conducted with 6 healthcare professionals and 11 consumers. Iterative changes to improve the content, format and structure of the decision aid were made over three rounds of modifications. The main changes included rewording the purpose of the decision aid and simplifying its layout and format. Participants reported that the decision aid is comprehensible and may be useful in clinical practice. Discussion Limited co-designed resources exist to guide shared decision making about deprescribing decisions for people living with dementia. Our co-designed CPtDA could help people living with dementia and their carers to consider their goals of care and decide to continue or deprescribe their ChEI alongside their healthcare professional. Conclusion(s) Using the CPtDA in practice will support shared decision making about the continued need of ChEIs. This may lead to increased deprescribing, better aligning medication use with patient goals.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical and Biological SciencesFrench-language works237,207