EP01.005 Adapting and translating an ACP public education model for Chinese and South Asian communities through a provincial initiative in BC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Since 2016, we have been partnering with community organisations to spread an evidence-based, community-led Advance Care Planning (ACP) education program across BC. Evaluation (2016–2018) demonstrated the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of the program for peer facilitators, community organizers, and public participants who are predominantly Caucasian, well-educated, and English-speaking. To address the low uptake of ACP resources in the Chinese or South Asian communities, the largest immigrant groups in BC, we culturally adapted and translated the program’s toolkit for people who speak Cantonese, Mandarin or Punjabi. Methods Adaptation was completed by a working group comprising members with subject-matter experience, and public partners from the communities. The working groups used information gathered from an environmental scan, key informant interviews and focus groups and surveys with members of the communities. Toolkit components were translated and confirmed by bilingual Working Group members. The toolkit was subsequently adapted for online delivery during the pandemic. Results Adaptation included changes to account for health literacy and general cultural sensitivity, use of more relevant stories, culturally accepted translation of key terms, and provision of translated sample scripts. All these resources were added to the toolkit materials. Key recommendations we identified include the following. Translators that have knowledge of the subject matter allowed for better translations than using generic translation services – for example, medical interpreters or bilingual clinicians. It is important to update photos/videos and stories to represent the target community to help people relate to the content. A review of developed/adapted materials with members of the target community is valuable. Conclusion Cultural adaptation is feasible, and public and community representatives contribute greatly to the process. The specific adaptations and the adaptation process can be applied to other interventions, communities and jurisdictions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".