Prevalence of Having Advance Directives and a Signed Power of Attorney in Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance directives are statements that allow a person to express his or her wishes for medical treatment in advance of needing it or to appoint someone else if they are unable to do so. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of decedents having a documented advance directive (AD) and a signed enduring power of attorney (SPoA) and to determine the degrees to which characteristics of decedents and their informant and the care the decedent received were predictive of the decedents having a documented AD and a SPoA. METHODS: A population-based mortality follow-back survey was conducted in Nova Scotia, Canada. Informants who were knowledgeable of a decedents' death were invited to participate in a telephone interview based on the After-Death Bereaved Family Member Interview. Regression analyses were used to assess factors that were predictive of having an AD or SPoA. RESULTS: Overall, 56.3% of decedents had a documented AD, and 67.6% had an SPoA. Significant predictors of a decedent having a documented AD were their age, where they received the majority of their end-of-life care, whether they received specialized palliative care, whether they were aware they were dying, and the informant's age. Significant factors in predicting whether a person had a SPoA were whether the decedent received specialized palliative care, where they received the majority of their care, and the age and education level of their informant. CONCLUSION: These results may be used to better target and tailor future efforts to promote use of AD and SPoA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".