Project description:ObjectiveThis study employs qualitative methodology to assess surgeons' perspective on decision making in management of recurrent diverticulitis to improve patient-centered decision making.Summary background dataThe decision to pursue colectomy for patients with recurrent diverticulitis is nuanced. Strategies to enact broad acceptance of guidelines for surgery are hindered because of a knowledge gap in understanding surgeons' current attitudes and opinions.MethodsWe performed semi-structured interviews with board-certified North American general and colorectal surgeons who manage recurrent diverticulitis. We purposely sampled specialists by both surgeon and practice factors. An iterative inductive/deductive strategy was used to code and analyze the interviews and create a conceptual framework.Results25 surgeons were enrolled over a nine-month period. There was diversity in surgeons' gender, age, experience, training, specialty (colorectal vs general surgery) and geography. Surgeons described the difficult process to determine who receives an operation. We identified seven major themes as well as twenty subthemes of the decision-making process. These were organized into a conceptual model. Across the spectrum of interviews, it was notable that there was a move over time from decisions based on counting episodes of diverticulitis to a focus on improving quality of life. Surgeons also felt that quality of life was more dependent on psychosocial factors than the degree of physiological dysfunction. [What about what surprised you/].ConclusionsSurgeons mostly have discarded older dogma in recommending colectomy for recurrent diverticulitis based on number and severity of episodes. Instead, decision making in recurrent diverticulitis is complex, involving multiple surgeon and patient factors and evolving over time. Surgeons struggle with this decision and education- or communication-based interventions that focus on shared decision making warrant development.
Project description:ObjectiveIt is common for individuals to engage in taxing cognitive activity for prolonged periods of time, resulting in cognitive fatigue that has the potential to produce significant effects in behaviour and decision making. We sought to examine whether cognitive fatigue modulates economic decision making.MethodsWe employed a between-subject manipulation design, inducing fatigue through 60 to 90 minutes of taxing cognitive engagement against a control group that watched relaxing videos for a matched period of time. Both before and after the manipulation, participants engaged in two economic decision making tasks (one for gains and one for losses). The analyses focused on two areas of economic decision making--preferences and choice strategies. Uncertainty preferences (risk and ambiguity) were quantified as premium values, defined as the degree and direction in which participants alter the valuation of the gamble in comparison to the certain option. The strategies that each participant engaged in were quantified through a choice strategy metric, which contrasts the degree to which choice behaviour relies upon available satisficing or maximizing information. We separately examined these metrics for alterations within both the gains and losses domains, through the two choice tasks.ResultsThe fatigue manipulation resulted in significantly greater levels of reported subjective fatigue, with correspondingly higher levels of reported effort during the cognitively taxing activity. Cognitive fatigue did not alter uncertainty preferences (risk or ambiguity) or informational strategies, in either the gains or losses domains. Rather, cognitive fatigue resulted in greater test-retest variability across most of our economic measures. These results indicate that cognitive fatigue destabilizes economic decision making, resulting in inconsistent preferences and informational strategies that may significantly reduce decision quality.
Project description:Plasmatic microRNA sequencing was conducted in specific matched subgroups of subjects (n = 53) with and without OSA using HTG EdgeSeq miRNA WTA Assay technology.
Project description:BackgroundLittle data exists regarding decision-making preferences for parents and surgeons in pediatric surgery. Here we investigate whether parents and surgeons have similar decision-making preferences as well as which factors influence those preferences. Specifically, we compare parents' and surgeons' assessments of the urgency and complexity of pediatric surgical scenarios and the impact of their assessments on decision-making preferences.MethodsA survey was emailed to parents of patients evaluated in a university-based pediatric surgery clinic and surgeons belonging to the American Pediatric Surgical Association. The survey asked respondents to rate 6 clinical vignettes for urgency, complexity, and desired level of surgeon guidance using the Controlled Preferences Scale (CPS).ResultsRegarding urgency, parents were more likely than surgeons to rate scenarios as emergent when cancer was involved (parents: 68.8% cancer vs. 29.5% non-cancer, p < .001; surgeons: 19.2% cancer vs. 25.4% non-cancer, p = .051). Parents and surgeons were more likely to rate a scenario as emergent when a baby was involved (parents: 45.2% baby vs. 36.2% child, p = .001; surgeons: 28.0% baby vs. 14.0% child, p < .001). Regarding decision-making preferences, parents and surgeons had similar CPS scores (2.56 vs. 2.72, respectively). Multivariable analysis showed parents preferred more surgeon guidance when scenarios involved a baby (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08-1.37; p < 0.01) or a cancer diagnosis (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.11-1.49; p < 0.01), and that both parents and surgeons preferred more surgeon guidance when a scenario was considered emergent (parents: OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.37-2.38, p < 0.001; surgeons: OR 2.48 95% CI 1.76-3.49, p < 0.001).ConclusionsWhen a pediatric patient is a baby or has cancer, parents are more likely then surgeons to perceive the clinical situation to be emergent, and both parents and surgeons prefer more surgeon guidance in decision-making when a clinical scenario is considered emergent. More research is needed to understand how parents' decision-making preferences depend on clinical context.
Project description:Objectives To assess the use of prognostic patient factors and predictive tests in clinical decision making for spinal fusion in patients with chronic low back pain. Design and setting Nationwide survey among spine surgeons in the Netherlands. Participants Surgeon members of the Dutch Spine Society were questioned on their surgical treatment strategy for chronic low back pain. Primary and secondary outcome measures The surgeons' opinion on the use of prognostic patient factors and predictive tests for patient selection were addressed on Likert scales, and the degree of uniformity was assessed. In addition, the influence of surgeon-specific factors, such as clinical experience and training, on decision making was determined. Results The comments from 62 surgeons (70% response rate) were analysed. Forty-four surgeons (71%) had extensive clinical experience. There was a statistically significant lack of uniformity of opinion in seven of the 11 items on prognostic factors and eight of the 11 items on predictive tests, respectively. Imaging was valued much higher than predictive tests, psychological screening or patient preferences (all p<0.01). Apart from the use of discography and long multisegment fusions, differences in training or clinical experience did not appear to be of significant influence on treatment strategy. Conclusions The present survey showed a lack of consensus among spine surgeons on the appreciation and use of predictive tests. Prognostic patient factors were not consistently incorporated in their treatment strategy either. Clinical decision making for spinal fusion to treat chronic low back pain does not have a uniform evidence base in practice. Future research should focus on identifying subgroups of patients for whom spinal fusion is an effective treatment, as only a reliable prediction of surgical outcome, combined with the implementation of individual patient factors, may enable the instalment of consensus guidelines for surgical decision making in patients with chronic low back pain.
Project description:BackgroundThe discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives to surgery with patients is a defining component of informed consent. As shared-decision making has become central to surgeon-patient communication, risk calculators have emerged as a tool to aid communication and decision-making. To optimize informed consent, it is necessary to understand how surgeons assess and communicate risk, and the role of risk calculators in this process.MethodsWe conducted interviews with 13 surgeons from two institutions to understand how surgeons assess risk, the role of risk calculators in decision-making, and how surgeons approach risk communication during informed consent. We performed a qualitative analysis of interviews based on SRQR guidelines.ResultsOur analysis yielded insights regarding (a) the landscape and approach to obtaining surgical consent; (b) detailed perceptions regarding the value and design of assessing and communicating risk; and (c) practical considerations regarding the future of personalized risk communication in decision-making. Above all, we found that non-clinical factors such as health and risk literacy are changing how surgeons assess and communicate risk, which diverges from traditional risk calculators.ConclusionPrincipally, we found that surgeons incorporate a range of clinical and non-clinical factors to risk stratify patients and determine how to optimally frame and discuss risk with individual patients. We observed that surgeons' perception of risk communication, and the importance of eliciting patient preferences to direct shared-decision making, did not consistently align with patient priorities. This study underscored criticisms of risk calculators and novel decision-aids - which must be addressed prior to greater adoption.
Project description:IntroductionConsensus is lacking regarding the optimal strategy to influence surgeons' behaviors to reduce low-value surgical care. Comprehensively describing the existing body of literature that seeks to intervene on surgeons' preoperative decision-making may aid in structuring future behavior change strategies.MethodsWe performed a scoping review using four databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) for articles that tested the effect of behavioral-based interventions on any aspect of surgeons' decision-making in the preoperative setting. Abstracted data were characterized by summative descriptions and analyzed using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Disease framework, mapping aspects of deimplementation strategies in the studies onto the determinant(s) that they altered. Data abstraction and mapping tools were piloted and iteratively revised before two researchers independently assessing studies and categorizing determinants, and then meeting to discuss their decisions.ResultsThere were 1460 articles identified from the initial search, with 17 full text articles ultimately included in the scoping review. Eight studies relied on a multidisciplinary preoperative conference to accomplish their aims, while five were multifaceted in their approach to deimplementation, and four studies used only a clinical decision support tool to accomplish their aims. Mapping determinants addressed in these studies onto the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Disease framework demonstrated that most strategies attempted to close knowledge gaps, leverage communication between providers, and broadcast institutional prioritization of change.ConclusionsThere is a small but growing field of implementation and deimplementation strategies in preoperative surgical decision-making, and different approaches may be equally effective in varied clinical contexts. Deliberate measurement and comparison of outcomes, as well as selection of control groups, are areas for improvement in future work.
Project description:Global warming and the globalisation of sport has increased the prevalence of sports competitions being held in hot environments. However, there is currently limited research investigating the impact of the heat on soccer-specific decision-making skills during exercise reflective of the physical demands of match-play. Therefore, the effects of heat exposure on physical and soccer-specific decision-making performance, biological markers (i.e., metanephrines), appraisal (i.e., challenge vs. threat) and affective states, during prolonged high-intensity intermittent exercise were investigated. Nine well-trained male soccer players completed a 92-min cycling intermittent sprint protocol (CISP), whilst simultaneously responding to a series of soccer-specific decision-making trials at various time points, in two temperature conditions: hot (32°C, 50%rh) and temperate (18°C, 50%rh). Results showed that decision-making score (p = .030) was impaired in the hot compared to the temperate condition. There was a reduced workload in the second half during the hot condition (p = .016), which coincided with a heightened threat state (p = .007) and more unpleasant feelings (p = .008) experienced in the hot, compared to temperate, condition. Furthermore, plasma normetanephrine (NMET) was higher at half-time (p = .012) and post-CISP (p ≤ .001). Also, plasma metanephrine (MET) was higher post-CISP (p = .009) in the hot compared to temperate condition, reflecting a heightened stress response. Our findings highlight the need for practitioners to consider the detrimental effects heat exposure can have on both physical and decision-making performance when looking to facilitate performance in hot conditions.
Project description:BackgroundIt has been well investigated that nature exposure intervention can restore directed attention and improve subsequent cognitive performance. The impairment of decision-making skills in mentally fatigued soccer players was attributed to the inability of attention allocation. However, nature exposure as the potential intervention to counter mental fatigue and improve the subsequent decision-making skill in soccer players has never been investigated.ObjectsThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of nature exposure intervention on decision-making skills among mentally fatigued university soccer players. Moreover, different durations of nature exposure were also evaluated.MethodsA random control between-subject design was adopted. Players were randomly assigned into six groups with three different durations of the experimental group compared with the corresponding control group (4.17 min: Exp 1 vs. Con 1; 8.33 min: Exp 2 vs. Con 2; and 12.50 min: Exp 3 vs. Con 3). All players were first mentally fatigued by performing a 45-min Stroop task; then, they viewed virtual photos of natural or urban scenes; and finally, they performed a soccer decision-making task.ResultsThe subjective ratings of mental fatigue were significantly higher following the Stroop task. Only Exp 3 (12.50 min viewing natural scenes) significantly improved decision-making reaction time compared with Con 3 (p = 0.09). Moreover, the accuracy slightly increased in Exp 3 after the intervention.ConclusionIn line with attention restoration theory, nature exposure significantly improved decision-making skills in mentally fatigue university players. However, the duration must be 12.50 min for each stimulus to stay longer to attract involuntary attention.
Project description:Previous studies have reported that trait anxiety (TA) affects decision making. However, results remain largely inconsistent across studies. The aim of the current study was to further address the interaction between TA and decision making. 304 subjects without depression from a sample consisting of 642 participants were grouped into high TA (HTA), medium TA (MTA) and low TA (LTA) groups based on their TA scores from State Trait Anxiety Inventory. All subjects were assessed with the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) that measures decision making under ambiguity and the Game of Dice Task (GDT) that measures decision making under risk. While the HTA and LTA groups performed worse on the IGT compared to the MTA group, performances on the GDT between the three groups did not differ. Furthermore, the LTA and HTA groups showed different individual deck level preferences in the IGT: the former showed a preference for deck B indicating that these subjects focused more on the magnitude of rewards, and the latter showed a preference for deck A indicating significant decision making impairment. Our findings suggest that trait anxiety has effect on decision making under ambiguity but not decision making under risk and different levels of trait anxiety related differently to individual deck level preferences in the IGT.