Women's Decision-Making Needs regarding Place of Care at End of Life
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the decision-making needs of terminally ill women who are considering options for place of care at the end of life. A pilot study was conducted with a sample of 20 terminally ill women with advanced cancer to identify factors taken into consideration in making this decision. Participants were interviewed using a semistructured questionnaire incorporating the domains of quality of end-of-life care and based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Results suggested a gap between the preferred (home, n = 13) and the actual (palliative care unit, n = 16) place of care. Discrepancies about place of care may be related to conflicting subjective factors such as being a burden to family versus having the opportunity to strengthen relationships with family and friends. Participants who were actively engaged in making the decision scored the highest levels of decisional conflict. Previous studies have shown an association between high decisional conflict scores and decision delay. Although findings from this small study are preliminary, they suggest that the decision regarding place of terminal care is complex with multiple competing factors being considered.
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it