Evaluation of a French adaptation of a community-based advance serious illness planning decision aid
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The Plan Well Guide™ (PWG) is a decision aid that empowers lay persons to better understand different types of care and prepares them, and their substitute decision-makers, to express both their authentic values and informed treatment preferences in anticipation of serious illness. We aimed to determine the acceptability of the newly translated French PWG and to evaluate decisional readiness and decisional conflict following its use by lay people. Methods: This is an acceptability and exploratory outcomes evaluation.Participants were requested to read and complete the French PWG and to engage in an online interview. We used the Acceptability Scale to determine the acceptability and the Preparation for Decision-making Scale and decisional conflict Scale to evaluate decisional readiness. Results: Forty-two (42) people participated. The average score on the Acceptability Scale was 18.1 (scale range: 4-20 [high-better]) and 26.6 on the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale (scale range: 6-30 [high-better]). A significant number of respondents reported needing more support to help them make better decisions. Conclusion: The French PWG has been deemed acceptable and relevant for lay people not currently facing clinical decisions. Innovation: The Plan Well Guide is innovative as it is the first decision aid empowering lay people for advance serious illness planning.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it