Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Advance care planning (ACP) aims to enhance end-of-life care yet often fails to live up to that potential. This interpretive study was designed to explore the process and outcomes of ACP using the Patient-centered ACP interview (PC-ACP) developed by Respecting Choices. Method Patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer and family members were recruited. Nine family dyads participated in the PC-ACP interview. Follow-up interviews took place 3 and 6 months after the PC-ACP interview. Thematic analysis was conducted on transcribed interviews using constant comparison. Results Hope was a significant theme in the ACP process and this paper reports on that theme. Hope for a cure was one of many hopes that supported quality of life. Three themes were identified: hope is multi-faceted, hope for a cure is well considered and hope is resilient and persistent. The seeming paradox of hoping for a cure of an incurable cancer did not interfere with the process of ACP. The dyads engaged in explicit discussions of end-of-life scenarios and preferences for care. ACP did not interfere with hope and hope for a cure did not interfere with ACP. Significance Concerns about false hope are called into question. The principle of honouring hope is not necessarily in conflict with the principle of truthful communication. This is clinically significant as the findings suggest we need not disrupt hope we think of as ‘unrealistic’ as long as it supports living well. Further, ACP can be successful even in the context of hoping for a cure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".