Beliefs in advance care planning among Chinese Americans: Similarities and differences between the younger and older generations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to explore behavioral, normative, and control beliefs in the discussion of advance care planning (ACP) among older and younger Chinese Americans. Ethnic minority groups have been identified as less engaged in ACP and this represents an ethnic and cultural gap. Older Chinese American adults often have different beliefs and values compared to the younger generation who are more acculturated to American mainstream culture. These differences may hinder the discussion of ACP with Chinese older adults. A qualitative design was used. The Theory of Planned Behavior guided the development of the interview guide. We recruited 60 Chinese Americans. Prior experience was identified as a theme that influenced attitudes about ACP. We found that older and younger Chinese participants had different beliefs in the norm and control related to ACP discussions, but not in the belief of attitudes about ACP discussions. Both younger and older Chinese American participants believed that ACP was important and necessary. Participants in both clusters expressed that they were ready and willing to engage in ACP discussions with their family members but hesitant to initiate these discussions. The reluctance in discussing ACP with Chinese older adults may be related to the expectations and obligations of Xiao (filial piety) in Chinese culture. This study describes the similarities and differences of beliefs in ACP between older and younger Chinese Americans. We identified barriers and facilitators in behavioral, normative, and control beliefs that can be used to promote ACP for Chinese Americans.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".