Communication About End of Life for Patients Living With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Scoping Review of the Empirical Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Communication about end of life, including advance care planning, life-sustaining therapies, palliative care, and end-of-life options, is critical for the clinical management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients. The empirical evidence base for this communication has not been systematically examined. Objective: To support evidence-based communication guidance by (1) analyzing the scope and nature of research on health communication about end of life for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; and (2) summarizing resultant recommendations. Methods: A scoping review of empirical literature was conducted following recommended practices. Fifteen health-related and three legal databases were searched; 296 articles were screened for inclusion/exclusion criteria; and quantitative data extraction and analysis was conducted on 211 articles with qualitative analysis on a subset of 110 articles that focused primarily on health communication. Analyses summarized article characteristics, themes, and recommendations. Results: Analysis indicated a multidisciplinary but limited evidence base. Most reviewed articles addressed end-of-life communication as a peripheral focus of investigation. Generic communication skills are important; however, substantive and sufficient disease-related information, including symptom management and assistive devices, is critical to discussions about end of life. Few articles discussed communication about specific end-of-life options. Communication recommendations in analyzed articles draw attention to communication processes, style and content but lack the systematized guidance needed for clinical practice. Conclusions: This review of primary research articles highlights the limited evidence-base and consequent need for systematic, empirical investigation to inform effective communication about end of life for those with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This will provide a foundation for actionable, evidence-based communication guidelines about end of life. Implications for research, policy, and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.034 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".