Factors Affecting Long-Term-Care Residents' Decision-Making Processes as They Formulate Advance Directives
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
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe factors contributing to the decision-making processes of elderly persons as they formulate advance directives in long-term care. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was qualitative, based on grounded theory. Recruitment was purposive and continued until saturation was reached. Nine residents of a long-term-care facility were interviewed by use of a semistructured format. Open and axial coding of interview transcripts were carried out and the factors contributing to the decision process were defined. RESULTS: Elders based their decisions primarily on information gathered from personal experiences with death and illness. They obtained very little information from professionals or the media. Major factors considered by elders as they weighed information included spiritual, emotional, and social considerations. IMPLICATIONS: The factors considered during the decision-making process were oriented more toward the individual's experiences and less on contributions from objective sources than anticipated. Decision making for advance directives is a highly personalized process. The approach of health professionals when assisting with end-of-life decision making should be planned with these contributing factors in mind, so that the services offered to the individuals in this population best meet their needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it