Decision aid for surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia – Assessing acceptability of the French version
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring all surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) can be time-consuming. We developed the first online CUA-endorsed BPH surgical Patient Decision Aid (PtDA), including all guideline-approved surgical modalities. Our study assesses the acceptability of the tool's French version (FRv) among patients and urologists. A PtDA was developed including 9 surgical modalities: monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), bipolar TURP, GreenLight photovaporization, endoscopic enucleation of the prostate, Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, open retropubic prostatectomy, and robotic simple prostatectomy. Ten urologists who perform BPH surgery and 21 patients with a history of BPH surgery were recruited. Alpha-testing was performed for the FRv and compared to the English version (ENv). In both versions of the PtDA, the language was considered clear (urologists FRv 78%; ENv 92%, patients FRv 91%; ENv 100%) and outcomes correctly reported (urologists FRv 71%; ENv 82%) and well explained (patients FRv 91%; ENv 90%). Most patients believed the PtDA would have been useful during their consultation (FRv = 86%, ENv = 89%), and all recommended it for future patients. A higher proportion of patients, versus urologists, found the PtDA of appropriate duration (urologists FRv 46%; ENv 64%, patients FRv 90%; ENv 84%) and length (urologists FRv 54%; ENv 64%, patients FRv 57%; ENv 84%). Urologists mainly recommended text lightening and integrating illustrations. While the FRv was found to be acceptable, it underperformed the ENv among urologists due to its information overload. The FRv will be rendered more concise to facilitate its integration into clinical practice. 4. L’exploration de toutes les interventions chirurgicales pour l’hypertrophie bénigne de la prostate (HBP) peut s’avérer chronophage. Nous avons développé le premier outil en ligne d’aide à la décision du patient (ADPt) pour la chirurgie de l’HBP, approuvé par l’association des urologues du Canada (AUC), comprenant toutes les modalités chirurgicales approuvées par les lignes directrices. Notre étude évalue l’acceptabilité de la version française de l’outil (vFR) parmi les patients et les urologues. Une ADPt a été développée en incluant 9 modalités chirurgicales: résection transurétrale de la prostate (RTUP) de type monopolaire, RTUP de type bipolaire, vaporisation photosélective de la prostate (VPP) en utilisant le laser Greenlight, énucléation endoscopique de la prostate, Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, prostatectomie simple ouverte, et la prostatectomie simple robot-assistée. Dix urologues et 21 patients précédemment opérés pour l’HBP ont été recrutés. Un test alpha a été réalisé pour la vFR et comparé à la version anglaise (vAN). Dans les deux versions de l’ADPt, le langage a été jugé clair (urologues vFR 78 % ; vAN 92 %, patients vFR 91 % ; vAN 100 %) et les résultats correctement rapportés (urologues vFR 71 % ; vAN 82 %) et bien expliqués (patients vFR 91 % ; vAN 90 %). La plupart des patients ont estimé que l’ADPt aurait été utile lors de leur consultation (vFR = 86 %, vAN = 89 %), et tous l’ont recommandée pour de futurs patients. Une plus grande proportion de patients que d’urologues a trouvé que l’ADPt était d’une durée appropriée (urologues vFR 46 % ; vAN 64 %, patients vFR 90 % ; vAN 84 %) et d’une longueur appropriée (urologues vFR 54 %; vAN 64 %, patients vFR 57 % ; vAN 84 %). Les urologues ont principalement recommandé d’alléger le texte et d’intégrer des illustrations. Bien que la vFR de l’ADPt ait été jugée acceptable, elle a été moins performante que la vAN chez les urologues en raison de la surcharge d’informations que celle-ci contient. La vFR sera rendue plus concise pour faciliter son intégration dans la pratique clinique. 4.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".