Short Report: Preferences for location of death of seriously ill hospitalized patients: perspectives from Canadian patients and their family caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies involving palliative patients suggest a preference for dying at home. The purpose of this paper is to examine, prospectively, patient and family caregiver preferences for, and congruence with, location of death for hospitalized patients with cancer and end-stage medical conditions. Questionnaires were administered to 440 eligible in-patients and 160 family caregivers in five hospitals across Canada. This paper reports results of 138 patient/family caregiver dyads who answered a question about preference for location of death. The results suggest that only half of all patients and family caregivers report a preference for a home death. Furthermore, half of the patient/family caregiver dyads disagree on preferred location of death. If one of the primary goals of end of life care is to enhance the quality of life of dying patients and their family caregivers, policies directed towards ensuring that patients die in their location of choice ought to be a priority and resources should be allocated to promote the development of excellent care, not only in the home, but also within our institutional settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".