Can we identify who will adhere to long-term physical activity? Signal detection methodology as a potential aid to clinical decision making.

1997 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abby C. King ◽  
Michaela Kiernan ◽  
Roy F. Oman ◽  
Helena C. Kraemer ◽  
Mary Hull ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Signal Detection ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision

scholarly journals Blood transfusion prescribing in the ACT: an insight into clinical decision making

2005 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J Crispin ◽  
Bethany J Crowe ◽  
Anne M McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Organisation Of Care ◽  
Metropolitan Hospital ◽  
Loss Of Appetite ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Structured Questionnaire

This study aimed to determine the perspectives of a group of patients categorised as ?long-stay outliers? at a large South Australian metropolitan hospital about aspects of organisation of care and the perceived impact of long-term hospitalisation. Nineteen patients were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Eighty-nine percent of participants stated that they had no knowledge of how long they were to be in hospital. Forty-two percent indicated that they did not know when they would be discharged from hospital. This was of concern, especially considering the vulnerability of this patient group and the known benefits of patient involvement in decision making and the improvements this can make to health outcomes and early discharge. Participants indicated concern about sleep deprivation, diet, ability to return to paid employment, and missing their family as the main areas of impact of their long hospitalisation. Concerns about being discharged from hospital included: apprehension as to whether they were well enough to leave; the recurrence of infection; whether they would be able to sleep well when they got home; their recent loss of appetite and associated weight loss; mobility concerns; and what supports they would have when they were discharged home. All these issues require staff to be more patient and family-centred in their approach to preparing for discharge.

scholarly journals CLINICAL DECISION MAKING FOR THE HEMODYNAMIC GRAY ZONE (FFR 0.75-0.80) AND IMPACT ON LONG TERM OUTCOMES

2016 ◽  
Vol 67 (13) ◽  
pp. 379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiv Kumar Agarwal ◽  
Mohan Edupuganti ◽  
Ahmed Almomani ◽  
Naga Venkata Pothineni ◽  
Jason Payne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Gray Zone ◽  
Long Term Outcomes

Health-Related Quality of Life Measurement in Randomized Clinical Trials in Surgical Oncology

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (19) ◽  
pp. 3178-3186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane M. Blazeby ◽  
Kerry Avery ◽  
Mirjam Sprangers ◽  
Hynek Pikhart ◽  
Peter Fayers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Surgical Trials ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

Purpose There is debate about the value of measuring health-related quality of life (HRQL) in clinical trials in oncology because of evidence suggesting that HRQL does not influence clinical decisions. Analysis of HRQL in surgical trials, however, may inform decision making because it provides detailed assessment of the immediate detrimental short-term impact of surgery on HRQL that needs to be considered against the long-term survival benefits and functional outcomes of surgery. This study evaluated whether HRQL in randomized trials in surgical oncology contributes to clinical decision making. Methods A systematic review identified randomized trials in surgical oncology with HRQL. Trials were evaluated independently by two reviewers and the value of HRQL in clinical decision making was categorized in three ways: whether trial investigators reported that HRQL influenced final treatment recommendations, whether trial investigators reported that HRQL would be useful for informed consent, and whether HRQL was assessed robustly according to predefined criteria. Results Thirty-three randomized trials with valid HRQL questionnaires were identified; 22 (67%) concluded that HRQL outcomes influenced treatment decisions or provided valuable data for informed consent, and seven of these trials had robust HRQL design. Another five trials had robust HRQL design but investigators reported that HRQL outcomes were not clinically important enough to influence treatment recommendations. Conclusion In surgical trials in oncology, HRQL informed clinical decision making. It is recommended that HRQL be included in relevant surgical trials, and that information be used to inform clinicians and patients about the impact of surgery on short- and long-term HRQL.

scholarly journals Understanding Neonatal Ventilation: Strategies for Decision Making in the NICU

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 246-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Petty
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Neonatal Ventilation ◽  
Ventilation Modes ◽  
Ventilation Strategies

AbstractNeonatal ventilation is an integral component of care delivered in the neonatal unit. The aim of any ventilation strategy is to support the neonate’s respiratory system during compromise while limiting any long-term damage to the lungs. Understanding the principles behind neonatal ventilation is essential so that health professionals caring for sick neonates and families have the necessary knowledge to understand best practice. Given the range of existing ventilation modes and parameters available, these require explanation and clarification in the context of current evidence. Many factors can influence clinical decision making on both an individual level and within the wider perspective of neonatal care.

Cancer Consultation Preparation Package: Changing Patients but Not Physicians Is Not Enough

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (21) ◽  
pp. 4401-4409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phyllis Butow ◽  
Rhonda Devine ◽  
Michael Boyer ◽  
Susan Pendlebury ◽  
Michael Jackson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Consultation Intervention ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Question Prompt

Purpose This study evaluated a cancer consultation preparation package (CCPP) designed to facilitate patient involvement in the oncology consultation. Patients and Methods A total of 164 cancer patients (67% response rate) were randomly assigned to receive the CCPP or a control booklet at least 48 hours before their first oncology appointment. The CCPP included a question prompt sheet, booklets on clinical decision making and patient rights, and an introduction to the clinic. The control booklet contained only the introduction to the clinic. Physicians were blinded to which intervention patients received. Patients completed questionnaires immediately after the consultation and 1 month later. Consultations were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and coded. Results All but one patient read the information. Before the consultation, intervention patients were significantly more anxious than were controls (mean, 42 v 38; P = .04); however anxiety was equivalent at follow-up. The CCPP was reported as being significantly more useful to family members than the control booklet (P = .004). Patients receiving the intervention asked significantly more questions (11 v seven questions; P = .005), tended to interrupt the physician more (1.01 v 0.71 interruptions; P = .08), and challenged information significantly more often (twice v once; P = .05). Patients receiving the CCPP were less likely to achieve their preferred decision making style (22%) than were controls (35%; P = .06). Conclusion This CCPP influences patients' consultation behavior and does not increase anxiety in the long-term. However, this intervention, without physician endorsement, reduced the percentage of patients whose preferred involvement in decision making was achieved.

scholarly journals GPs’ understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: an online survey

BJGP Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen20X101016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Stephen Treadwell ◽  
Geoff Wong ◽  
Coral Milburn-Curtis ◽  
Benjamin Feakins ◽  
Trisha Greenhalgh
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Long Term Conditions ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Uk

BackgroundGPs prescribe multiple long-term treatments to their patients. For shared clinical decision-making, understanding of the absolute benefits and harms of individual treatments is needed. International evidence shows that doctors’ knowledge of treatment effects is poor but, to the authors knowledge, this has not been researched among GPs in the UK.AimTo measure the level and range of the quantitative understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for common long-term conditions (LTCs) among GPs.Design & settingAn online cross-sectional survey was distributed to GPs in the UK.MethodParticipants were asked to estimate the percentage absolute risk reduction or increase conferred by 13 interventions across 10 LTCs on 17 important outcomes. Responses were collated and presented in a novel graphic format to allow detailed visualisation of the findings. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 443 responders were included in the analysis. Most demonstrated poor (and in some cases very poor) knowledge of the absolute benefits and harms of treatments. Overall, an average of 10.9% of responses were correct allowing for ±1% margin in absolute risk estimates and 23.3% allowing a ±3% margin. Eighty-seven point seven per cent of responses overestimated and 8.9% of responses underestimated treatment effects. There was no tendency to differentially overestimate benefits and underestimate harms. Sixty-four point eight per cent of GPs self-reported ‘low’ to ‘very low’ confidence in their knowledge.ConclusionGPs’ knowledge of the absolute benefits and harms of treatments is poor, with inaccuracies of a magnitude likely to meaningfully affect clinical decision-making and impede conversations with patients regarding treatment choices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document