Development and Pilot Testing of a Novel Graphic Values History Tool To Support Communication and Decision Making During Serious Illness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We report the development and pilot testing of a values history tool to support patients and their substitute decision makers (SDMs) in advance care planning. Methods Tool development was an iterative, multi-phase process involving expert input, literature review, patient input, and beta testing with 35 laypersons. In a single-centre, before-after pilot study, we assessed the acceptability, clarity, and potential utility of the tool. Results Participants (n=6; 3 patients and 3 SDMs) rated the tool as clear (4.7/5), worthwhile (4.7/5), and said it did not cause distress (4.7/5). Tool completion and discussion resulted in a better understanding of patient values (4.5/5) and helped build understanding between patient and SDM (4.3/5). Conclusions Based on development involving content experts, patients, and laypersons, we conclude that our tool has face and content validity. Our pilot study suggests it merits evaluation in larger studies to further evaluate its utility.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it