A decision aid to support family carers of people living with dementia towards the end‐of‐life: Coproduction process, outcome and reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family carers of people living with dementia often need support with making decisions about care. Many find end-of-life care decisions particularly difficult. The aim of this article is to present an evidence- and theoretical-based process for developing a decision aid to support family carers of people with dementia towards the end-of-life. METHODS: Following a systematic process, we developed a decision aid using coproduction methods and matrices to synthesize data from a systematic review and qualitative interviews with people living with dementia and family carers. Data were presented to coproduction workshops of people living with dementia, family carers, practitioners and professionals. Development was guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and a modified Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making model. RESULTS: The decision aid covers four decision areas: (1) changes in care; (2) eating and drinking difficulties; (3) everyday well-being; and (4) healthcare, tests and medication. We present an interactive decision aid, using a variety of approaches including written text, Frequently Asked Questions, top tips and illustrative quotes from people living with dementia and family carers. CONCLUSION: This is the first decision aid that focusses on multiple decisions towards the end-of-life in dementia care. The process offers a template for others to develop decision aids or similar interventions, and how to include people living with dementia in coproduction. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Family carers provided feedback on data collection, data analysis and the decision aid, and one is a coauthor. People living with dementia and family carers were integral to the coproduction workshops.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".