Acceptability of the voice your values, an advance care planning intervention in persons living with mild dementia using videoconferencing technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advance care planning (ACP) can improve outcomes for persons living with dementia (PLwD). Clinicians see the lack of acceptability of these conversations as a barrier to ACP in individuals with mild dementia. COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the need for ACP discussions in older adults, particularly for those living with dementia. In light of the pandemic, much of the healthcare is provided virtually, but little evidence exists on how to best implement ACP virtually. We designed Voice Your Values (VYV), a tailored ACP intervention for persons living with mild dementia and their trusted individuals such as friends or family. Purpose Determine the acceptability of the VYV intervention, in terms of its content and the potential utility of videoconferencing to deliver it. Methods For this pilot study, we recruited 21 dyads of older adults with mild dementia and their trusted individuals from five geriatric clinics in Ontario, Canada. The tailored VYV intervention was delivered to dyads over two sessions over videoconferencing. Acceptability was assessed using scores on a modified Treatment Evaluation Inventory. The interventionist diary and Researcher Virtual Experience Questionnaire were used to examine facilitators and barriers, whereas Participant Virtual Experience Questionnaire was used to understand their experience. Qualitative data was analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results 100% of the participants rated VYV as acceptable. Participants and researcher rated video and sound quality highly. PLwD who lived with their trusted individuals were more likely to find the intervention acceptable (t = 3.559, p = 0.001, β = 0.323). Five interrelated themes were established that describe the acceptability of the virtually delivered VYV intervention. All PLwD were able to articulate their values and wishes related to being in a terminal and vegetative states and had them documented. Conclusion The virtual VYV intervention was an acceptable approach to ACP in older adults with mild dementia and their trusted individuals.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".