Decision Making at the End of Life in Dementia: How Family Caregivers Perceive Their Interactions With Health Care Providers in Long-Term-Care Settings
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
Makingend-of-lifecare decisions in the context of dementiais complex. As people with advanced dementia are in capable of deciding about their own care, family caregivers often become involved with health care providers in the decision-making process to ensure the best care for their loved one. Using a grounded theory approach, the experience of family caregivers in making such end-of-life care decisions was explored. Twenty-four caregivers were interviewed. The results show that caregivers evoke five dimensions when considering these decisions. One dimension, the relationship with health care providers, emerged as vital to their experience. Four elements of this relationship are presented in this article: quality of the relationship, frequency of contact, congruence of their values and beliefs with those of health care providers, and the level of trust. In an era that promotes partnership with families in long-term-care settings, care standards are needed in order to guarantee family participation in achieving quality dementia care.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it