Family Members End of Life Decision Making Experiences
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
Significance: The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of individuals who accept the role of decision maker for a family member at the end of life, particularly focusing on their perspectives on their interactions with clinicians and the impact these interactions made on their decision-making process.With the completion of this study, the hopes are to develop a better understanding of the needs and of individuals making decisions for their family members at their end of life to ultimately improve the way clinicians interact with them.Objective: To understand family members' experiences with end of life decision making including how clinicians interacted with them.Method: Individual interviews were conducted with 10 family members who contributed to making an end-of-life decision for a family member.All individuals who were 18 or older, English speaking, and willing to discuss their experiences were eligible for the study.The participants were privately interviewed over the phone.For analysis of the data, a coding scheme was constructed by selecting significant components of the family members' experiences.The texts of the interviews were transcribed and coded allowing for the review of commonalities across the experiences.Measurements: Qualitative interviews were used to describe experiences using a semi-structured interview guide.The interview guide was developed using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, a guide for clients to use in decision-making regarding the health or social aspects of their life.This framework allows the interview and data to focus on evaluating the needs of the individual.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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