ライフサイエンスコーパス: decisional

1 r is entirely decision dependent (i.e., post-decisional).

2 responses are neither entirely pre- nor post-decisional.

3 keholders, a QPL was created to address core decisional and informational needs of surgical patients.

4 e, we report three new lines of evidence for decisional and postdecisional mechanisms arguing for the

5 es that social media sites serve for patient decisional and support needs.

6 al decision support can better standardize a decisional approach and also allow a unique degree of pe

7 d the sensory, motor, or sensorimotor (i.e., decisional) aspects of the task.

8 In contrast, decisional authority is a nondelegable parental right an

9 effort to provide patients with appropriate decisional authority over their own medical choices, sha

10 h while limiting patients' end of life (EOL) decisional authority through advance directives or surro

11 e first distinguish decisional priority from decisional authority.

12 ocity, prevent prejudice, donor safety net), decisional autonomy (body ownership, right to know, vali

13 included review of goals, tailored feedback, decisional balance exercise, role plays, and referrals.

14 ination) was generally the best predictor of decisional capacity (particularly in the understanding c

15 The need to evaluate decisional capacity among patients in treatment settings

16 irical investigations have directly compared decisional capacity among patients with a serious mental

17 e research is needed on methods of enhancing decisional capacity among those with impaired competence

18 considered limiting life-support who lacked decisional capacity and a legally recognized surrogate d

19 so, as requirements for formal assessment of decisional capacity are becoming more common, there is a

20 ymptoms shown to be associated with impaired decisional capacity are not unique to schizophrenia and

21 to identify those needing more comprehensive decisional capacity assessment and/or remediation effort

22 earch participants who warrant more thorough decisional capacity assessment and/or remediation effort

23 The authors identified 23 decisional capacity assessment instruments and evaluated

24 t perform as well as the controls on initial decisional capacity assessment.

25 Decisional capacity differed among the 3 groups; there w

26 This study ascertains the decisional capacity for informed consent in schizophreni

27 ors critically reviewed existing measures of decisional capacity for research and treatment.

28 tical measures for screening and documenting decisional capacity in people participating in different

29 The potential impairment of decisional capacity in persons with schizophrenia is cen

30 ability, and correlates of treatment-related decisional capacity in this patient population.

31 Decisional capacity is generally conceptualized to inclu

32 Subjects who performed poorly on the decisional capacity measure received an educational inte

33 Decisional capacity was assessed for 30 research subject

34 underscore the importance of considering how decisional capacity will be assessed in all types of res

35 t is built upon the elements of information, decisional capacity, and volunteerism.

36 y lower scores on two of the four aspects of decisional capacity.

37 itive dysfunction, psychiatric symptoms, and decisional capacity.

38 lusions), were significantly associated with decisional capacity.

39 ble options, accuracy of risk estimates, and decisional comfort.

40 y associated with the peak latency of the P3 decisional component.

41 treatment (the primary outcome), as well as decisional conflict (a secondary outcome), were measured

42 (d, -0.01; lower bound 97.5% CI, -0.06), and decisional conflict (d, -0.12; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.0

43 Primary outcome was preoperative decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale); seconda

44 interval, 3.20-14.78), and experienced less decisional conflict (mean difference = -5.04; 95% confid

45 more likely to know their risk, and had less decisional conflict along with greater involvement in SD

46 for decision making, as well as with greater decisional conflict and distress, even after adjustment

47 rgoing coronary angiogram procedures reduces decisional conflict and improves value congruence and th

48 also suggested that decision aids decreased decisional conflict and increased satisfaction with the

49 families of patients deemed at high risk for decisional conflict and provided feedback to the clinica

50 ledge about testing, risk comprehension, and decisional conflict and regret at 24 to 36 weeks' gestat

51 Preoperative decisional conflict did not differ between the groups (3

52 cision aid (DA) on the medical knowledge and decisional conflict in patients with early-stage PTC con

53 eparation for decision making, distress, and decisional conflict in separate models, controlling for

54 Significant differences did not emerge in decisional conflict or regret.

55 e counselor group had lower mean scores on a decisional conflict scale (P =.04) and, in low-risk wome

56 tervention group had a significantly reduced decisional conflict scale compared with control (unadjus

57 ention patients felt better informed (median Decisional Conflict Scale informed subscore: 8 versus 17

58 Mean total decisional conflict scale score significantly improved f

59 utcome was preoperative decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale); secondary outcomes included

60 tient satisfaction was measured by using the decisional conflict scale.

61 l conflict, was assessed using the validated decisional conflict scale.

62 High decisional conflict scores improved after both the decis

63 RAI treatment was significantly greater and decisional conflict was significantly reduced in the DA

64 Patient anxiety and decisional conflict were significantly lower after RS re

65 ion aids improve patient knowledge and lower decisional conflict without raising anxiety levels, they

66 ration to make a decision for testing, lower decisional conflict, and greater decisional self-efficac

67 ic groups as measured by knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM.

68 atus) on the outcomes of knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM.

69 n making, information comprehension, values, decisional conflict, and preferred treatment.

70 ids (DAs) increase patient knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and promote shared decision making

71 mic medications, patient-reported medication decisional conflict, and satisfaction with antihyperglyc

72 Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and decisional conflict, and the secondary outcome was an ob

73 Patients completed measures for decisional conflict, anxiety, and quality of life.

74 ddition, we documented effects on knowledge, decisional conflict, anxiety, quality of life, patient i

75 Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict, difficulty making the decision, can

76 e impact of PCI Choice on patient knowledge, decisional conflict, participation in decision-making, a

77 The primary outcome, decisional conflict, was assessed using the validated de

78 sthetic heart valve selection does not lower decisional conflict.

79 criteria identified 873 patients at risk for decisional conflict.

80 o promote automatic responding and to reduce decisional conflict.

81 lues-based decisions, while clearly reducing decisional conflict.

82 eported using a tailored approach to resolve decisional conflicts about life support and attempted to

83 eported using a tailored approach to resolve decisional conflicts about life support and attempted to

84 proach treatment decisions with a desire for decisional control, which may increase after their consu

85 in noise (internal or external), a change in decisional criteria, or signal enhancement.

86 he effects of expectation can also be due to decisional criterion shifts independent of any sensory c

87 confidence estimates and by the influence of decisional cues on confidence estimates.

88 th conscious and unconscious accumulation of decisional evidence.

89 t we have poor metacognition for unconscious decisional evidence.

90 Consistent with this, a decisional flowchart for predicting fibrosis was suggest

91 Persons with decisional impairment due to Alzheimer's disease are as

92 uthors examined the effects of cognitive and decisional impairment on willingness to participate in r

93 mer's disease group, the presence of greater decisional impairment tended to predict less willingness

94 Here we assess decisional impulsivity in subjects with obsessive compul

95 cated in inhibitory function but its role in decisional impulsivity is less well-understood.

96 nucleus is causally implicated in increasing decisional impulsivity with less accumulation of evidenc

97 impairments are observed across subtypes of decisional impulsivity, possibly reflecting uncertainty

98 le for the value-coding medial SN network in decisional impulsivity, while the salience-coding ventra

99 evidence and delay discounting are forms of decisional impulsivity.

100 or associative-limbic subthalamic nucleus in decisional impulsivity.

101 last resort" due to their vulnerability and decisional incapacity.

102 ase, as well as integration and weighting of decisional information, which is coupled to alpha phase

103 ess patients' preoperative informational and decisional needs.

104 C) was created to help identify preoperative decisional needs.

105 nd content of the system could be adapted to decisional participants' unique characteristics, abiliti

106 phasizing patient accountability, restricted decisional power, protecting unit interests), and entren

107 We first distinguish decisional priority from decisional authority.

108 clinician is in a better position to assume decisional priority when a child probably can be cured.

109 s (and children, when appropriate) to assume decisional priority when there are two or more clinicall

110 why clinicians sometimes justifiably assume decisional priority when there is one best medical choic

111 This distinction enables us to analyze decisional priority without diminishing parental authori

112 irst identifies a preferred choice exercises decisional priority.

113 ty responses could represent a higher-level, decisional process of cognitive monitoring, though that

114 The results show that decisional processes are rapidly implemented during move

115 e LC in regulating the behavioral outcome of decisional processes contrasts with more traditional vie

116 We examined online decisional processing in humans by asking them to make r

117 Other measures of decisional quality were not improved, and engagement of

118 t knowledge but did not significantly impact decisional quality.

119 ent, patient-centered decisions with reduced decisional regret and work-related stress experienced by

120 e compromise outcomes and impose unnecessary decisional regret on clinicians and patients alike.

121 ure was heightened regret as measured by the Decisional Regret Scale.

122 ts (N = 54) met our definition of heightened decisional regret.

123 nd psychosocial characteristics on patients' decisional role was also examined.

124 e between patients' and physicians' views on decisional role.

125 h greater self-efficacy desiring more active decisional roles (P = .08).

126 Decisional satisfaction was lowest among minority women

127 ess to information about reconstruction, and decisional satisfaction.

128 ting, lower decisional conflict, and greater decisional self-efficacy.

129 elies on supramodal confidence estimates and decisional signals that are shared across sensory modali

130 ex continual results in distinctive types of decisional situations.

131 central death regulator, is required at the decisional stage of apoptosis.

132 C identified a need for more information and decisional support during preoperative conversations tha

133 and feedback to clinical staff, computerized decisional support systems, and specialist-level pain co

134 Impairments appear to be more specific to decisional than motor impulsivity, which might reflect d

135 M organization based on automated alerts and decisional trees enabled a focus on clinically relevant

136 y nurses and cardiologists; and (2) selected decisional trees.

137 standing of randomization, and exhibited low decisional uncertainty.

138 iarity, and prognostic uncertainty), seeking decisional validation (a familial obligation, alleviatin

139 ed, the mechanisms by which attention alters decisional weighting of sensory evidence (choice-bias co