Refinement of a Conceptual Model for Adolescent Readiness to Engage in End-of-Life Discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents living with incurable cancer require ongoing support to process grief, emotions, and information as disease progresses including treatment options (phase 1 clinical trials and/or hospice/palliative care). Little is known about how adolescents become ready for such discussions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the process of adolescent readiness for end-of-life preparedness discussions, generating a theoretical understanding for guiding clinical conversations when curative options are limited. METHODS: We explored 2 in-depth cases across time using case-study methodology. An à priori conceptual model based on current end-of-life research guided data collection and analysis. Multiple sources including in-depth adolescent interviews generated data collection on model constructs. Analysis followed a logical sequence establishing a chain of evidence linking raw data to study conclusions. Synthesis and data triangulation across cases and time led to theoretical generalizations. Initially, we proposed a linear process of readiness with 3 domains: a cognitive domain (awareness), an emotional domain (acceptance), and a behavioral domain (willingness), which preceded preparedness. RESULTS: Findings led to conceptual model refinement showing readiness is a dynamic internal process that interacts with preparedness. Current awareness context facilitates the type of preparedness discussions (cognitive or emotional). Furthermore, social constraint inhibits discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Data support theoretical understanding of the dynamism of readiness. Future research that validates adolescent conceptualization will ensure age-appropriate readiness representation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Understanding the dynamic process of readiness for engaging in end-of-life preparedness provides clinician insight for guiding discussions that facilitate shared decision making and promote quality of life for adolescents and their families.
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 | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".