Evidence of increasing public participation in advance care planning: a comparison of polls in Alberta between 2007 and 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) encompasses both verbal and written communications expressing preferences for future health and personal care and helps prepare people for healthcare decision-making in times of medical crisis. Healthcare systems are increasingly promoting ACP as a way to inform medical decision-making, but it is not clear how public engagement in ACP activities is changing over time. METHODS: Raw data from 3 independently conducted public polls on ACP engagement, in the same Canadian province, were analysed to assess whether participation in ACP activities changed over 6 years. RESULTS: Statistically significant increases were observed between 2007 and 2013 in: recognising the definition of ACP (54.8% to 80.3%, OR 3.37 (95% CI 2.68 to 4.24)), discussions about healthcare preferences with family (48.4% to 59.8%, OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.69)) and with healthcare providers (9.1% to 17.4%, OR 1.98 (95% CI 1.51 to 2.59)), written ACP plans (21% to 34.6%, OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.17)) and legal documentation (23.4% to 42.7%, OR 2.13 (95% CI 1.75 to 2.59)). These remained significant after adjusting for age, education and self-rated health status. CONCLUSIONS: ACP engagement increased over time, although the overall frequency remains low in certain elements such as discussing ACP with healthcare providers. We discuss factors that may be responsible for the increase and provide suggestions for healthcare systems or other public bodies seeking to stimulate engagement in ACP.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".