OP05 A conversation card game motivates british columbians to engage in advance care planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Advance care planning (ACP) is an important process that involves reflecting on, discussing and documenting one’s values and preferences for future healthcare. A 2016 study in British Columbia (B.C.) showed that public engagement in ACP is low. The BC Centre for Palliative Care (BC-CPC) is leading a provincial initiative, in collaboration with various stakeholders, to promote early public engagement in ACP behaviours through innovative strategies. In 2016, BC-CPC partnered with 15 community-based organizations to assess the acceptability and effectiveness of a conversation card game in engaging the public in ACP conversations. Game questions are designed to stimulate conversations about issues relevant to decision making in the context of a serious illness. Methods Participants were recruited by convenience sampling using community advertisements. During the game, participants take turns drawing cards, reading the questions on the cards aloud, and writing down their answers before sharing them with the group. Quantitative data was collected using a structured questionnaire to assess the participants’ experience and motivation to engage in ACP. Results Over 12 months, 547 British Columbian adults participated in 44 game events hosted by community organizations from across B.C. After playing the game, the majority of participants (90%) planned to continue the conversation with family, and 75% agreed that the game made the conversations about the discussed topics safe and meaningful. Conclusion Our findings indicate that playing the conversation game in a community setting is a feasible and effective way to motivate British Columbian to engage in ACP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".