Planning for Serious Illness by the General Public: A Population-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. While rates of advance care documentation amongst the general public remain low, there is increasing recognition of the value of informal planning to address patient preferences in serious illness. Objectives. To determine the associations between personal attributes and formal and informal planning for serious illness across age groups. Methods. This population-based, online survey was conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, in April, 2012, using a nonclinical sample of 827 adults ranging from 18 to 88 years of age and representative of age, sex, and regional distribution of the province. Associations between key predictor variables and planning for serious illness were assessed using binary logistic regression. Results. While 16.6% of respondents had completed a written living will or advance care plan, half reported having conversations about their treatment wishes or states of health in which they would find it unacceptable to live. Lawyers were the most frequently cited source of assistance for those who had prepared advance care plans. Personal experiences with funeral planning significantly increased the likelihood of activities designed to plan for serious illness. Conclusions. Strategies designed to increase the rate of planning for future serious illness amongst the general public must account for personal readiness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".