PERSPECTIVES ON DEATH, DYING AND ADVANCE CARE PLANNING FROM PATIENTS RECEIVING HAEMODIALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The illness trajectory of End Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) is not linear therefore it can be difficult for practitioners to know when end-of-life care begins. Advance care planning (ACP) allows patients to take part in decision making, however much of the research conducted stems from North America and Canada where individuals have experience of ACP. The aim of the study was to determine the views of Irish patients receiving haemodialysis, on death, dying and ACP. METHODS: A quantitative, descriptive design was used with a convenience sample of 50 patients. Data were collected by means of a researcher administered questionnaire and analysed using descriptive statistics. FINDINGS: The majority of participants were comfortable talking about death, but not necessarily among family, with most desiring medical interventions to prolong life. The control of pain and other symptoms, being physically comfortable and being at peace spiritually were the most important issues at end of life. CONCLUSION: This study provides an insight into what is important to patients in relation to death, dying and advance care planning.
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 | 0.000 | 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".