Advance directives and end-of-life decisions in Switzerland: role of patients, relatives and health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".