Advance Directives among Nursing Home Residents with Mild, Moderate, and Advanced Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe prevalence and content of AD documentation among NH residents by dementia stage. BACKGROUND: The prevalence of advance directives (ADs) among nursing home (NH) residents with mild, moderate, and advanced dementia remains unclear. METHODS: Population-based, cross-sectional study of all licensed NHs in five U.S. states. Subjects included all long-stay (>90 day) NH residents with dementia, aged ≥65 years, and a Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS) score ≥1 from the 2007 to 2008 Minimum Data Set 2.0 (n = 180,621). Dementia severity was classified as follows: mild (CPS 1-2), moderate (CPS 3-4), and advanced (CPS 5-6). MEASUREMENTS: ADs were defined as the presence of a living will, do-not-resuscitate order, do-not-hospitalize order, medication restriction, or feeding restriction). RESULTS: Overall, 59% of residents had any AD and 17% had a living will. Prevalence of any AD increased by dementia severity: mild (51.2%), moderate (58.2%), and advanced (61.5%) (p < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, resident characteristics associated with any AD documentation included older age, female gender, being white, and having more severe dementia. Having a living will was associated with higher education (≥high school graduate vs. some high school or less) and being married. DISCUSSION: While dementia severity was associated with greater likelihood of having documented any AD, almost 4 in 10 residents with dementia lacked any AD. Effective outreach may focus efforts on subgroups with lower odds of any AD or living wills, including non-white, less educated, and unmarried NH residents. A greater understanding of how such factors impact care planning will help to address barriers to patient-centered care for this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".