MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210697876 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afac049

BABEL (Better tArgeting, Better outcomes for frail ELderly patients) advance care planning: a comprehensive approach to advance care planning in nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial

2022· article· en· W4210697876 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Allan Garland, Heather Keller, Patrick Quail, Véronique Boscart, Michelle Heyer, Clare D. Ramsey, Vanessa Vucea, Nora Choi, Ikdip Bains, Seema King, Tatiana Oshchepkova, Tatiana Kalashnikova, Brittany Kroetsch, Jessica Steer, George Heckman

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsConestoga CollegeUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Frailty Network
KeywordsMedicineAdvance care planningNursing homesCluster (spacecraft)NursingCluster randomised controlled trialMEDLINEGerontologyPalliative carePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nursing home (NH) residents should have the opportunity to consider, discuss and document their healthcare wishes. However, such advance care planning (ACP) is frequently suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: Assess a comprehensive, person-centred ACP approach. DESIGN: Unblinded, cluster randomised trial. SETTING: Fourteen control and 15 intervention NHs in three Canadian provinces, 2018-2020. SUBJECTS: 713 residents (442 control, 271 intervention) aged ≥65 years, with elevated mortality risk. METHODS: The intervention was a structured, $\sim$60-min discussion between a resident, substitute decision-maker (SDM) and nursing home staff to: (i) confirm SDMs' identities and role; (ii) prepare SDMs for medical emergencies; (iii) explain residents' clinical condition and prognosis; (iv) ascertain residents' preferred philosophy to guide decision-making and (v) identify residents' preferred options for specific medical emergencies. Control NHs continued their usual ACP processes. Co-primary outcomes were: (a) comprehensiveness of advance care planning, assessed using the Audit of Advance Care Planning, and (b) Comfort Assessment in Dying. Ten secondary outcomes were assessed. P-values were adjusted for all 12 outcomes using the false discovery rate method. RESULTS: The intervention resulted in 5.21-fold higher odds of respondents rating ACP comprehensiveness as being better (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.53, 7.61). Comfort in dying did not differ (difference = -0.61; 95% CI -2.2, 1.0). Among the secondary outcomes, antimicrobial use was significantly lower in intervention homes (rate ratio = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66, 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Superior comprehensiveness of the BABEL approach to ACP underscores the importance of allowing adequate time to address all important aspects of ACP and may reduce unwanted interventions towards the end of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207