MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291702224 · doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000730

Advance directives and end-of-life decisions in Switzerland: role of patients, relatives and health professionals

2015· article· en· W2291702224 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Supportive & Palliative Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanPalliative careMulticulturalismAnxietyMedicineDiseaseDepression (economics)Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleFamily medicinePsychologyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known in Europe about end-of-life (EOL) decisions and advance directives (AD), particularly in patients with severe advanced disease. Switzerland is a multicultural and multilingual federal country and has the particularity of being divided into four linguistic and cultural regions OBJECTIVE: To understand better in different regions of Switzerland which specific patient's characteristics could have an impact on their decision to complete AD or not. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Prospective study conducted in four palliative care units. Patients with an advanced oncological disease, fluent in French, German or Italian and with a Mini-Mental State Examination >20 were included. Demographic data, symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, ESAS; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS) and spiritual well-being (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual well-being, FACIT-sp) have been assessed. A structured questionnaire has been completed by patients, their relatives and health professionals. RESULTS: 143 patients were included (mean age 68.3 years; 62 male). 41 completed ADs. No particular features were associated with the completion of ADs. Most patients were satisfied with the medical information received. A third of them were not worrying about their future, especially those living in the German-speaking part. Should they become unable to communicate, 87 expected their relative to transmit their own wishes, but only 38 had spoken recently with them about what they wanted. 23 of the 69 included relatives would like to play a more active role in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate the fact that terminally ill patients wish to be active in decision-making, but only seldom transmit their wishes to their relative or complete a written document. The discussion about ACP should be defined according to the particularity of each region and the role of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards ADs, but we should also be creative and find other ways to promote shared decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it