Readiness to participate in advance care planning: A qualitative study of renal failure patients, families and healthcare providers
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
Objectives Advance care planning is the process by which people reflect upon their wishes and values for healthcare, discuss their choices with family and friends and document their wishes. Readiness represents a key predictor of advance care planning participation; however, the evidence for addressing readiness is scarce within the renal failure context. Our objectives were to assess readiness for advance care planning and barriers and facilitators to advance care planning uptake in a renal context. Methods Twenty-five participants (nine patients, nine clinicians and seven family members) were recruited from the Southern Alberta Renal Program. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and then analyzed using interpretive description. Results Readiness for advance care planning was driven by individual values perceived by a collaborative encounter between clinicians and patients/families. If advance care planning is not valued, then patients/families and clinicians are not ready to initiate the process. Patients and clinicians are delaying conversations until "illness burden necessitates," so there is little "advance" care planning, only care planning in-the-moment closer to the end of life. Discussion The value of advance care planning in collaboration with clinicians, patients and their surrogates needs reframing as an ongoing process early in the patient's illness trajectory, distinguished from end-of-life 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it