Engagement and attitudes towards advanced care planning in primary care during COVID-19: A cross-sectional survey of older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advance care plans (ACPs) increase patient-centered care, reduce caregiver burden and healthcare costs. However, only about 25% of Canadians over 50 years of age have completed an ACP. An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed to those ≥70 years attending a primary care clinic-based COVID-19 vaccination event in Regina, SK in April 2021. The survey included questions about demographics, attitudes, engagement in ACPs according to the Stage of Change model, and patient-reported influence of COVID-19 on ACP thoughts or actions. One hundred thirty-four surveys were completed (96% response rate). Twenty-seven percent of respondents were at the precontemplation stage, 21% at contemplation stage, 16% at planning stage, 26% at action stage, and 10% at maintenance stage. Thirty-three percent of respondents had thought more about ACPs during the pandemic, but few updated or created plans. Most respondents felt comfortable talking with their physician and partners. There is a need for physicians to initiate ACP conversations with patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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".