Health professionals' views on advance directives: a qualitative interdisciplinary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to discover the views of health professionals in the Greater Glasgow area on advance directives, using semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The twelve participants interviewed included four hospital doctors, four general practitioners (GPs) and four nurses. The six focus groups comprised hospice nurses, GPs, consultant geriatricians, geriatricians in training grades and an interdisciplinary group. Participants were purposively selected to reflect a range of personal experiences with, and attitudes toward, the advance directive using key informants and a short questionnaire. Participants were asked to comment on a specially constructed sample advance directive. All research encounters were recorded, transcribed and analysed using accepted methods in qualitative research. The advance directive was seen as a means of promoting peace of mind in will makers, of allowing carers to honour the patients' wishes and of stimulating communication between all parties. Conversely the advance directive was seen as generating certain risks for the will maker--including those of coercion, misunderstanding, paradoxical overintervention and inadvertent undertreating. A core concern surrounded the issue of 'informedness' in will makers and the ethics of deciding for a future demented self.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".