Engaging persons with dementia in advance care planning: Challenges and opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports findings from a series of focus groups with persons with dementia and family caregivers intended to explore: (1) perceptions of and experiences with advance care planning (ACP); (2) concerns related to future care including, but not limited to, end-of-life care; and (3) practices that may support positive engagement with ACP. A total of 18 participants including 10 persons with dementia and eight family caregivers participated in five focus groups held in two urban cities in Canada. All focus group deliberations were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in five stages using a semantic thematic approach. All participants expressed some form of engagement in ACP, but understandings were limited and divergence was expressed regarding the timing of more expansive conversations about future care. Although some persons with dementia were ready to engage in future care discussions, most preferred focusing on the present and suggested their families did not require direction. This placed families in the complex dilemma of protecting their loved ones while compromising their own needs for dialogue. Although individually focused models of ACP engagement hold promise for those persons with dementia ready to engage in future planning, our findings suggest that early engagement of families in the reflective process may go a long way in supporting ACP activation. Our findings further suggest that persons with dementia who do not have close family/friends may require extensive ACP encouragement and support from service providers.
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 | 0.000 | 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".