Just and inclusive end-of-life decision-making for long-term care home residents with dementia: a qualitative study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many people living with dementia eventually require care services and spend the remainder of their lives in long-term care (LTC) homes. Yet, many residents with dementia do not receive coordinated, quality palliative care. The stigma associated with dementia leads to an assumption that people living in the advanced stages of dementia are unable to express their end-of-life needs. As a result, people with dementia have fewer choices and limited access to palliative care. The purpose of this paper is to describe the protocol for a qualitative study that explores end-of-life decision-making processes for LTC home residents with dementia. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is informed by two theoretical concepts. First, it draws on a relational model of citizenship. The model recognizes the pre-reflective dimensions of agency as fundamental to being human (irrespective of cognitive impairment) and thereby necessitates that we cultivate an environment that supports these dimensions. This study also draws from Smith's critical feminist lens to foreground the influence of gender relations in decision-making processes towards palliative care goals for people with dementia and reveal the discursive mediums of power that legitimize and sanction social relations. This study employs a critical ethnographic methodology. Through data collection strategies of interview, observation, and document review, this study examines decision-making for LTC home residents with dementia and their paid (LTC home workers) and unpaid (family members) care partners. DISCUSSION: This research will expose the embedded structures and organizational factors that shape relationships and interactions in decision-making. This study may reveal new ways to promote equitable decision-making towards palliative care goals for LTC home residents with dementia and their care partners and help to improve their access to palliative care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".