OP456 Encouraging Shared Decision-Making Of Goals Of Care Discussions In Lung Cancer Patients Using A Smartphone Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction An important reason for receiving non-beneficial treatment at end-of life is the lack of timely discussions on goals of care and end-of-life preferences. A recent randomized clinical trial demonstrated that patients primed with a questionnaire on their end-of-life preferences were more likely to initiate such conversations with their doctors. Our objective is to integrate the questionnaire into a smartphone application to facilitate early goals of care discussions. To achieve this goal, we first plan to undertake a feasibility study to understand stakeholder preferences. Methods As part of a quality improvement initiative at our Canadian quaternary-care hospital, we conducted focus groups with oncology and palliative care physicians and patients to understand barriers to early conversations on end-of-life preferences, and to assess feasibility of using smartphone technology in facilitating these conversations. The app would integrate a questionnaire to patients and send prompts to physicians on patient readiness and timing of conversations. Results We conducted separate focus groups with lung cancer patients (n = 6) and clinicians in oncology (n = 6) and palliative care (n = 6). Clinical teams expressed enthusiasm about early conversations but raised several barriers including system (lack of electronic documentation and access to data; multiple physicians), clinician (lack of time) and patient (stigma associated with end-of-life) barriers. Clinicians agreed that an app could overcome some of these barriers such as access to patient and electronic data by making patients the repository of all their data and empowering them to initiate discussions. However, they raised concerns about universal accessibility of such technology, especially among the elderly. Patient focus groups will take place in March 2021 and inform us on feasibility in this population. Conclusions There is a consensus among physicians at our hospital that early end-of-life conversations have the potential to mitigate adverse events and that use of a smart phone app could facilitate such conversations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".