What do people affected by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis want from health communications? Evidence from the <scp>ALS</scp> Talk Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Health communication is central to effective, supportive amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinical care. Guidance for ALS communication is limited, focuses on diagnosis disclosure, and frequently relies on expert consensus and/or reviews. Patient-based evidence is needed to guide ALS health communication. We investigated how the experiences of ALS patients and family caregivers can inform effective communication practices from diagnosis to end-of-life. METHODS: Data were drawn from the ALS Talk Project, an asynchronous, online focus group study. Seven focus groups and five interviews (105 participants) were conducted. Data were qualitatively analyzed using directed content analysis and the constant-comparative approach. RESULTS: We found four primary themes: communication content, communication circumstances, information sufficiency, and communication manner. Data indicate participants relied on clinicians for medical information but also wanted practical information; health communication should attend to the circumstances within which conversations occur; information must be sufficient for individual needs, without overwhelming; and an empathetic, direct, and honest manner facilitated trust. Participants identified communication challenges and strategies to improve communication across major themes, including stepwise approaches and conversations tailored to individuals and their heterogeneous disease experiences. DISCUSSION: Healthcare professionals should discuss patient/caregiver communication preferences early in the therapeutic relationship, co-develop a communication agreement, and update the agreement in response to changing needs and disease progression. This will foster regular discussion of information needs and promote timely discussions of challenging topics, including advance care, while giving patients and families a sense of control. Findings may have implications for other neuromuscular disease and/or seriously ill populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".