[Persons aged 75 and above who have a death wish while not being seriously ill: who are these people?]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the prevalence of persistent death wishes without being severely ill among Dutch older persons aged 75 and above; to describe the characteristics and circumstances of this group; to improve knowledge on the nature of their death wishes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHOD: In 2019 we conducted a large survey among a representative sample of 32,477 Dutch citizens aged 55 and above from the TNS-NIPObase. The questionnaire was completed by 21,294 respondents in April 2019 (response rate 65.6%). This article comprises a subanalysis of the respondents aged 75 and above. RESULTS: Of all 3,141 respondents aged 75 and above, 56 were identified as having a persistent death wish and no severe illness (PDW-NSI). The weighted percentage representing the Dutch population indicates PDW-NSI among 2.07% of all older persons aged 75 and above in the Netherlands. Respondents with PDW-NSI had a lower level of education, were of lower social class and lived in highly urbanized areas more often. Important aspects enhancing the death wish were dependence on others, worrying, physical or mental deterioration, health problems and loneliness. The death wish was subject to change and the intensity varied over time. CONCLUSION: Of older persons aged 75 and above with PDW-NSI, a considerable part stays out of sight of healthcare professionals because they do not communicate about their death wish. This may challenge timely support. Carefully questioning the meaning and nature of the death wish is essential to understand the background and underlying needs of the persons concerned.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".