Perspectives on advance care planning in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) engagement and completion of advance directives remain low in patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, despite the high risk of treatment-related mortality. AIM: To understand the barriers to and facilitators of ACP in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. METHODS: This qualitative study used interpretive description methodology. The researchers conducted audio-recorded semi-structured interviews with participants. The constant comparative method was used to analyse data. RESULTS: A total of six patients, five family members and eight clinicians participated in the study. Perceived barriers to ACP included: lack of time, lack of process, lack of understanding of disease/treatment and ACP, need to keep positive and prognostic uncertainty. Potential facilitators of ACP included: early and frequent discussion of ACP, incorporating ACP into routine care, involvement of the multidisciplinary team and framing discussions on ACP as positive. CONCLUSIONS: Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation poses unique challenges for patients, families and clinicians when it comes to ACP. Introducing advance care planning as part of standard care and providing ongoing facilitation of ACP, including discussion of disease and treatment expectations at the outset and when complications arise may assist patients and families in recognising how ACP can fit into and enhance their care.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".