Exploring the advance care planning needs of moderately to severely ill people with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no clear consensus on how to approach advance care planning (ACP) with people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). AIM: This study aimed to explore the perceived ACP needs of people with COPD and to investigate the usefulness of a DVD in meeting these needs. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used. Twelve people with moderate to severe COPD were interviewed in an outpatient clinic. RESULTS: From the themes elicited, a mental model was created to demonstrate how the participants engaged in a process of mental work to accept their own mortality and subsequently engage in ACP. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals should not rely solely on illness severity to initiate ACP. Rather, patients from different illness categories should be approached, but with sensitivity to their emotional cues. Participants who were receptive to end-of-life issues enjoyed the DVD. The DVD is a good medium to facilitate discussion, but would be more effective if patients were screened for readiness prior to viewing.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".