“People are more afraid of a dementia diagnosis than of death”: The challenges of supporting advance care planning for persons with dementia in community settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving early uptake of advance care planning (ACP) for persons with dementia and their families requires that staff in community-based settings feel armed and equipped to encourage and support this process. Yet few studies have explored whether staff within non-medical environments feel prepared to support early ACP engagement for persons with early-stage dementia and their families. Our qualitative interpretivist study aimed to fill this gap by facilitating, transcribing and thematically analyzing deliberations from three focus groups with 17 community-based staff. Our findings revealed four key barriers to ACP activation in community settings: (1) the stigma associated with the condition; (2) lack of knowledge about end-of-life concerns for persons with dementia; (3) uncertainties about managing complex family dynamics and (4) worries that opening up conversations about future care may lead to the expression of wishes that could not be actualized (e.g., dying at home). Our findings further revealed that ACP engagement was facilitated when staff expressed confidence in their capacities to gauge readiness, viewed themselves as guides rather than experts and had access to resources to supplement their knowledge. Reflexive training opportunities and access to materials and resources around end-of-life care for persons with dementia, could equip staff in these non-medical settings with the skills to engage in ongoing dialogue about future care issues with persons living with dementia and their families.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".