Construction of a patient-centered decision support tool for cosmetic breast surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to develop and evaluate a patient-centered decision aid (PDA) to support shared decision-making among individuals undergoing aesthetic breast surgery in China. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework served as the theoretical foundation for the development of the tool, which was created through a multistage process that included a literature review, expert focus group interviews, and a pilot clinical application involving 20 patients. The PDA was implemented using a WeChat mini-program and structured into six core modules: assessment of decision-making, evaluation of support resources, information acquisition, provider selection, surgical plan selection, and decision evaluation. Expert panels, comprised of experienced clinicians and patients, assessed the importance of each component, with all primary indicators receiving scores above 4.75 on a five-point scale. Pilot testing revealed that PDA enhanced patient understanding of risks and benefits, elucidated values and preferences, reduced decisional regret, and improved communication efficiency between patients and clinicians. The qualitative interviews confirmed their practical utility and cultural adaptability. This tool offers a structured, evidence-informed, and interactive platform to empower patients to make well-aligned decisions regarding aesthetic breast procedures. Future research should focus on scaling its application and exploring artificial intelligence integration to personalize decision support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".