Caregiver preparedness for death in dementia: an evaluation of existing tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Death preparedness amongst family caregivers (CG) is a valuable and measurable concept. Preparedness predicts CG outcomes in bereavement and is modifiable through a palliative approach which includes advance care planning (ACP) interventions. Improving death preparedness is important for CGs of persons with dementia (PwD) whom are more likely to develop negative outcomes in bereavement, and experience less than adequate palliative care. However, the adequacy of existing tools to measure death preparedness in CGs of PwD is unknown, which limits intervention design and prospective evaluation of ACP effectiveness.Methods: We conducted a review and evaluation of existing tools measuring the attribute domains and traits of CG death preparedness. Literature was searched for articles describing caregiving at end of life (EOL). Measurement tools were extracted, screened for inclusion criteria, and data extracted regarding: conceptual basis, population of development, and psychometrics. Tool content was compared to preparedness domains/traits to assess congruency and evaluate the adequacy of tools as measures of death preparedness for CGs of PwD.Results: Authors extracted 569 tools from articles, retaining seven tools for evaluation. The majority of tools, n = 5 (70%) did not sample all preparedness domains/traits. Few tools had items specific to EOL; only one tool had a specific item questioning CG preparedness for death, and only one tool had items specific to dementia.Conclusion: Limitations in existing tools suggest they are not adequate measures of death preparedness for CGs of PwD. Consequently, the authors are currently developing a questionnaire to be titled, ‘Caring Ahead’ for this purpose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".