Facilitating Advance Care Planning for Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprehensive care of patients with ESRD requires expertise in advance care planning (ACP), including attention to ethical, psychosocial, and spiritual issues related to starting, continuing, withholding, and stopping dialysis. However, there are no standards of care regarding when to initiate or how to facilitate ACP. The purpose of this study was to determine the perspectives of patients with ESRD of the salient elements of ACP discussions. An ethnographic, qualitative, in-depth interview study was conducted of outpatients of a university-affiliated nephrology program. Twenty-four patients with ESRD were purposively selected from the renal insufficiency, hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis clinics. Establishing patient "buy-in" by identifying perceived benefits of ACP along with acknowledging patients' sense of personal empowerment were critical both for the effective framing of facilitated ACP and for determining patients' ability to participate in facilitated ACP. Patients required more information and earlier initiation of ACP discussions. Information needed to focus more on the individual and how his or her illness and interventions would affect his or her life and relationships and what he or she values most. Empathetic listening also was viewed as an integral component of facilitated ACP. Physicians clearly were seen as having the responsibility for initiating and guiding ACP. The role of patients and family within ACP is complex and varies significantly between patients. For most, family was an integral component of ACP, and many relied extensively on family to make end-of-life decisions. These findings identify a precarious tension between patients' preferences in terms of facilitated ACP and current clinical practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".