Integrating Advance Care Planning Videos into Surgical Oncologic Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Preoperative advance care planning (ACP) may benefit patients undergoing major surgery. Objective: To evaluate feasibility, safety, and early effectiveness of video-based ACP in a surgical population. Design: Randomized controlled trial with two study arms. Setting: Single, academic, inner-city tertiary care hospital. Subjects: Patients undergoing major cancer surgery were recruited from nine surgical clinics. Of 106 consecutive potential participants, 103 were eligible and 92 enrolled. Interventions: In the intervention arm, patients viewed an ACP video developed by patients, surgeons, palliative care clinicians, and other stakeholders. In the control arm, patients viewed an informational video about the hospital's surgical program. Measurements: Primary Outcomes—ACP content and patient-centeredness in patient–surgeon preoperative conversation. Secondary outcomes—patient Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score; patient goals of care; patient and surgeon satisfaction; video helpfulness; and medical decision maker designation. Results: Ninety-two patients (target enrollment: 90) were enrolled. The ACP video was successfully integrated with no harm noted. Patient-centeredness was unchanged (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.06, confidence interval [0.87–1.3], p = 0.545), although there were more ACP discussions in the intervention arm (23% intervention vs. 10% control, p = 0.18). While slightly underpowered, study results did not signal that further enrollment would have yielded statistical significance. There were no differences in secondary outcomes other than the intervention video was more helpful (p = 0.007). Conclusions: The ACP video was successfully integrated into surgical care without harm and was thought to be helpful, although video content did not significantly change the ACP content or patient–surgeon communication. Future studies could increase the ACP dose through modifying video content and/or who presents ACP. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02489799.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".