The Barriers and Facilitators of Shared Decision Making in Pediatric Otolaryngology: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision making (SDM) in pediatric otolaryngology. STUDY DESIGN: A qualitative study. SETTING: Semistructured interviews of pediatric otolaryngologists. METHODS: The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used as a guide for data collection and analysis to consider capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM-B) factors. The focal surgical procedures were tonsillectomy, adenoidectomy, and tympanostomy tube placement. Deductive and inductive coding of interview transcripts according to TDF/COM-B domains were performed by 2 separate reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 11 interviews were conducted to achieve data saturation. The 4 dominant themes were: (1) inconsistent inclusion of SDM elements in practice, (2) social influences from parents, (3) environmental context, and (4) applicability of SDM in otolaryngology. Theme 1 identified that surgeons perceived SDM as a feature of their practice. However, the discussion of parents' values was seen as less explicit and structured interview formats were not commonly employed. Theme 2 demonstrated that surgeons saw parents' preconsult "agenda" as influencing their openness to consider multiple treatment options. Theme 3 pointed to the barriers of short appointment times, challenges in the use of support staff and lack of decision aids. Theme 4 emphasized surgeons' belief in the value of SDM and that parents' involvement in decision making reduced likelihood of decisional regret. CONCLUSION: Pediatric otolaryngologists strongly support the value of SDM during clinical encounters, particularly to allow parent ownership of decisions regarding treatment. The major barriers were lack of clinical translation of SDM knowledge, social influences, and environmental factors.
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 | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".