Medical end-of-life practices among Canadian physicians: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical end-of-life practices are hotly debated in Canada, and data from other countries are used to support arguments. The objective of this pilot study was twofold: to adapt and validate a questionnaire designed to measure the prevalence of these practices in Canada and the underlying decision-making process, and to assess the feasibility of a nationally representative study. METHODS: In phase 1, questionnaires from previous studies were adapted to the Canadian context through consultations with a multidisciplinary committee and based on a scoping review. The modified questionnaire was validated through cognitive interviews with 14 physicians from medical specialties associated with a higher probability of being involved with dying patients recruited by means of snowball sampling. In phase 2, we selected a stratified random sample of 300 Canadian physicians in active practice from a national medical directory and used the modified tailored method design for mail and Web surveys. There were 4 criteria for success: modified questions are clearly understood; response patterns for sensitive questions are similar to those for other questions; respondents are comparable to the overall sampling frame; and mean questionnaire completion time is less than 20 minutes. RESULTS: Phase 1: main modifications to the questionnaire were related to documentation of all other medical practices (including practices intended to prolong life) and a question on the proportionality of drugs used. The final questionnaire contained 45 questions in a booklet style. Phase 2: of the 280 physicians with valid addresses, 87 (31.1%) returned the questionnaire; 11 of the 87 declined to participate, for a response rate of 27.1% (n = 76). Most respondents (64 [84%]) completed the mail questionnaire. All the criteria for success were met. INTERPRETATION: It is feasible to study medical end-of-life practices, even for practices that are currently illegal, including the intentional use of lethal drugs. Results from this pilot study support conducting a large national study, but additional strategies would be necessary to improve the response rate.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".