Advanced Care Planning for Persons With Dementia in Primary Care: Attitudes and Barriers Among Health-Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) provides clarity on goals and preferences for future health-care decisions, the timeliness of which is critical for persons with dementia. AIM: This study assessed Primary Care Collaborative Memory Clinic (PCCMC) health-care practitioners' desire for more education on ACP, capacity for and attitudes toward ACP, and current ACP practices in their regular family practice and in their PCCMC. METHODS: Primary Care Collaborative Memory Clinic health-care professionals completed a questionnaire in which they rated their interest in learning various ACP-related topics (5-point scale: not at all to very much so), attitudes toward ACP, and the importance of and perceived degree of responsibility for ACP (5-point scale: not at all to extremely). Respondents estimated ACP completion in regular family practice and PCCMC. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty one surveys were completed. Mean knowledge ratings were moderate (M = 3.0) and mean ratings of interest in ACP topics were all high (median ≥ 4). Despite the perception that ACP is very important (M = 4.9) and the responsibility of PCCMCs (M = 3.7), the majority of respondents estimated that 40% or fewer patients have had ACP. Ratings of willingness to conduct ACP (M = 3.7) and comfort level (M = 3.4) were moderate but significantly exceeded ratings of ability (M = 2.9), comfort (M = 3.5), and confidence (M = 2.8). CONCLUSION: There was a striking disconnect between perceptions of the importance of completing ACP for persons with dementia and actual ACP completion rates. Primary Care Collaborative Memory Clinics may be in an ideal position to support ACP discussions; however, there is a need to improve health-care professionals' knowledge and attitudes toward ACP.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".