Physicians’ and Nurses’ perspectives on the importance of advance directives in tertiary care hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore and identify the nurses’ and physicians’ views about Advance Directives and identified their perspectives on its importance, in the context of Pakistan. Methodology: Using a purposive sample, six physicians and seven nurses from two tertiary care hospitals in Karachi participated in the study. Data was collected using semi structured interviews that were transcribed verbatim. The interviews were coded and categorized manually. Analysis of the data drew four categories: roles of physicians and nurses in the End of life care, challenges they faced while taking end of life care decisions; their perspectives about Advance Directives, and the scope of acceptability of Advance Directives in the context of a Pakistani society. Results: This study revealed that patients’ families and physicians usually take decisions for patients’ End of Life care. Although majority of participants acknowledged the usefulness of Advance Directives, they explicated several issues that may be encountered in implementing it. The issues included non-disclosure of diagnosis to the patient in Pakistani culture, the tedious legalization process involved, and the potential problem of forged documents. Conclusion: Participants recommended establishment of Palliative Care services before execution of Advance Directives. This study indicated viability of Advance Directives; however, a wider exploration would be required in terms of study population. Reforms to support this concept would be required in systems, structure, legal policy, and training of Health care professionals. Besides these transformations, promotion of public education about the advantages of Advance Directives could enhance their acceptability among the general 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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".