Facilitators of and Barriers to Advance Care Planning in Adult Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) are interested in discussing matters related to advance care planning (ACP) early in the disease course, yet few such conversations actually occur. We aimed to evaluate factors that impact these discussions between patients and adult CHD providers. METHODS: Two hundred adult CHD outpatients completed a survey that included factors that might impact ACP discussions with their doctors. In parallel, forty-eight providers within the Canadian Adult Congenital Heart Network completed a similar online survey. Responses were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Most providers (85%) worried that they were unable to reliably estimate life expectancy and believed that patients were not ready for end-of-life discussions if their estimated life expectancies were beyond 5 years (63%) or beyond 10 years (79%). In contrast, only 24% of patients, independent of disease complexity, thought they were not ready to talk about ACP. Most providers (83%) reported that greater certainty about patients' prognoses would help them discuss ACP. Patients thought that such discussions were best facilitated when they had trust in their doctors (85%) and believed their doctors are good at taking care of patients with CHD (78%). CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that challenges to prognostication exist, discussions about ACP should not be reserved for patients with a severely reduced life expectancy. Most patients want these discussions regardless of the complexity of their disease. The trusting and close patient-doctor relationship in adult CHD, often evolving over many years, may provide an excellent platform from which to initiate such discussions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".