Advance care planning among older Canadians amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a focus on sexual orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to death and hardship around the world, and increased popular discourse about end-of-life circumstances and conditions. The extent to which this discourse and related pandemic experiences have precipitated advance care planning (ACP) activities was the focus of this study with a particular emphasis on sexual orientation. METHODS: A large, national online survey was conducted between 10 August and 10 October 2020 in Canada. The final sample of 3923 persons aged 55 and older was recruited using social media, direct email, and Facebook advertising and in conjunction with community groups. Women comprised almost 78% of the sample; just more than 7% of the sample identified as lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB). Measures included demographic variables and a series of questions on ACP, including documents and discussions undertaken prior to the pandemic and since its onset. RESULTS: Descriptive analyses revealed few gender or sexual orientation differences on documents and discussions prior to the pandemic; since its onset, LGB persons have completed or initiated wills, powers of attorney, advance directives, representation agreements, and have engaged in ACP discussions in greater proportion than heterosexuals. Logistic regressions reveal the increased likelihood of pre-pandemic ACP engagement by age, gender (women), and education; since the pandemic onset, gender, education, and sexual orientation were predictive of greater ACP engagement. Care discussions were more likely undertaken by women and LGB persons since the pandemic most often with spouses, family, and friends, especially among LGB persons. DISCUSSION: Gender roles and previous pandemic experiences (HIV/AIDS, in particular) are implicated in this pattern of results; opportunities for educational interventions are considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".