Identifying the Factors That Facilitate or Hinder Advance Planning by Persons With Dementia
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
We performed semistructured interviews with 30 family members of patients with advanced dementia to identify the factors that facilitate or hinder advance planning by persons with dementia. All interviews were analyzed using qualitative data analysis techniques. The majority (77%) of family members reported that their relative had some form of written advance directive, and at least half reported previous discussions about health care preferences (57%), living situation or placement issues (50%), and finances or estate planning (60%) with the patient. Family members reported some themes that prompted planning and others that were barriers to planning. Events that most often triggered planning were medical, living situation, or financial issues associated with a friend or family member of the patient (57%). Barriers to planning included both passive and active avoidance. The most common form of passive avoidance was not realizing the importance of planning until it was too late to have the discussion (63%). The most common form of active avoidance was avoiding the discussion (53%). These data suggest potentially remediable strategies to address barriers to advance planning 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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