Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Many initiatives to promote ACP have been occurring in British Columbia (BC) over the last decade, however the impact of these activities on public awareness and engagement is unclear. To longitudinally investigate ACP awareness and engagement, we conducted polls with the BC public in 2016 and 2020 and and re-interrogated previously published poll from 2012. Methods 2016 and 2020 polls were conducted with 500 English speaking Adults living in BC by Mustel market research firm in September 2016 and February 2020 respectively. Questions about ACP included Awareness, and engagement in the following activities: Thought about wishes, thought about Substitute Decision Maker (SDM), Documented their ACP, had a discussion with a family member or friend, and had a discussion with a healthcare provider (HCP). The 2012 poll, conducted by Ipsos Reid eNation Canada for CARENET, was re-interrogated for BC data, with overlapping questions about awareness, and conversations with a family member or friend and healthcare provider. All three polls were weighted to be representative of the adult BC population according to age, gender and region. Polls were analysed using binomial logistic regression. Results Awareness of ACP increased between 2012 and 2016/2020. Discussions with Healthcare Providers increased between 2012/2016 and 2020. Men had approximately half as much awareness and engagement in all ACP activities asked about except documentation and conversation with a HCP. Similarly, awareness and engagement were lower in younger respondents for all activities except documentation and conversation with a HCP. for overall ACP engagement, in addition to age and gender, it was lower for respondents within Metro Vancouver, compared to elsewhere in the province. Conclusion While awareness of ACP has increased in the time period studied, besides conversations with HCP, engagement has not increased. These results also highlight the need for interventions that particularly target men.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.007 |
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".