Can Persons with Dementia Meaningfully Participate in Advance Care Planning Discussions? A Mixed-Methods Study of SPIRIT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the importance of persons with dementia (PWDs) engaging in advance care planning (ACP) at a time when they are still competent to appoint a surrogate decision maker and meaningfully participate in ACP discussions, studies of ACP in PWDs are rare. Objective: We conducted an intervention development study to adapt an efficacious ACP intervention, SPIRIT (sharing patient's illness representations to increase trust), for PWDs in early stages (recent Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] score ≥13) and their surrogates and assess whether SPIRIT could help PWDs engage in ACP. Design: A formative expert panel review of the adapted SPIRIT, followed by a randomized trial with qualitative interviews, was conducted. Patient–surrogate dyads were randomized to SPIRIT in person (in a private room in a memory clinic) or SPIRIT remote (via videoconferencing from home). Setting/Subjects: Twenty-three dyads of PWDs and their surrogates were recruited from an outpatient brain health center. Participants completed preparedness outcome measures (dyad congruence on goals of care, patient decisional conflict, and surrogate decision-making confidence) at baseline and two to three days post-intervention, plus a semistructured interview. Levels of articulation of end-of-life wishes of PWDs during SPIRIT sessions were rated (3 = expressed wishes very coherently, 2 = somewhat coherently, and 1 = unable to express coherently). Results: All 23 were able to articulate their end-of-life wishes very or somewhat coherently during the SPIRIT session; of those, 14 PWDs had moderate dementia. While decision-making capacity was higher in PWDs who articulated their wishes very coherently, MoCA scores did not differ by articulation levels. PWDs and surrogates perceived SPIRIT as beneficial, but the preparedness outcomes did not change pre–post. Conclusions: SPIRIT engaged PWDs and surrogates in meaningful ACP discussions, but requires testing of efficacy and long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".