Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Increased Advance Care Planning Discussions Held by Older Adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In an online survey exploring older Canadians’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, 3989 respondents aged 55-99 indicated whether they had discussed their future care preferences and with whom, prior to and since the outbreak. Pre-pandemic, 62% had held such discussions; since the pandemic 43% did so, 11% for the first time. Rates were significantly higher among white respondents than among persons of color, women than men, and those 65+ than younger respondents. Respondents were most likely to have talked, respectively, with their spouse (58% before; 40% since), family (35%; 22%), and friends (12%; 10%)—with higher rates for white, women and older respondents. Surprisingly, only 4% before and 2% since the pandemic had discussed their care preferences with a doctor. Initiation of some new discussions was encouraging but there were fewer than expected, perhaps due to denial, superstition, or disbelief of pandemic severity. Advance care planning remains an under-utilized resource.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".