EP01.006 Outcomes and learnings from implementing community-led advance care planning programs for people living with dementia and family/friend caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite recognition of its importance for people with dementia, literature has identified that Advance Care Planning (ACP) happens infrequently. In collaboration with community partners and people with lived experience, BC Centre for Palliative Care co-developed two programs to support community organizations to facilitate ACP events for people with early stages of dementia and their family/friend caregivers. The two programs support community organizations to facilitate: Guided group conversation events to help participants reflect on their values, beliefs and wishes for care, and Information sessions to help participants get started with their ACP. Each program comprises a training curriculum for the event facilitators and a toolkit of resources for organizers, facilitators, and participants. Methods The programs were adapted from an existing successful, sustainable program that supports community-led ACP sessions for the public. The adapted programs aim to promote the engagement of people with dementia and their family/friend caregivers in ACP to help them get care consistent with their wishes. Results The dementia-tailored programs were piloted in 4 communities, refined, and then evaluated in 10 communities across BC using a mixed-methods approach. Data was collected from facilitators and participants through surveys and interviews. Pilot results found that 95% of respondents agreed that the conversation event helped them think and talk about their healthcare wishes and 91% agreed that the information sessions helped them understand the steps of ACP. Preliminary evaluation results indicate the program’s success in urban, rural, and remote communities including a First Nations community with 25 elders. Conclusion Engagement of people with lived experience was integral to program development. Stigma associated with dementia and end-of-life required special attention to curriculum content, language, and promotional materials. Facilitators to engagement include emphasizing conversations rather than forms, focusing on living well rather than dying, integrating storytelling, and using a step-by-step approach.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".