The Preferred Place of Last Days: Results of a Representative Population-Based Public Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The place of death is of considerable interest now, yet few studies have determined public preferences for place of end-of-life (EOL) care or final days of life. OBJECTIVE: A survey was designed to answer three questions: (1) What are public preferences for the place of last days? (2) Is this place preference related to socio-demographic and other background characteristics? and (3) Is this place preference associated with specified previous death and dying experiences, the preparation of a living will or advance directive, or a viewpoint supportive of death hastening? DESIGN: An experienced telephone survey company was commissioned to gain a representative population-based sample and survey participants. In mid-2010, 1203 adults were surveyed in Alberta. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression were conducted. RESULTS: This survey revealed 70.8% preferred to be at home near death; while 14.7% preferred a hospice/palliative care facility, 7.0% a hospital, and 1.7% a nursing home; 5.7% had no stated preference. Marital status was the only predictor of place preference, with widowed persons more often indicating a preference for a hospital or hospice/palliative care facility. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest homes are the preferred EOL place now for the majority of Albertans, if not other citizens, while at the same time suggesting that marital and living arrangement realities temper EOL place choices and possibilities, with widows best realizing the need for assistance from others when dying. The widespread preference for home-based EOL care indicates public health interventions are needed to promote good home deaths.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it