Primary care providers’ perceptions on the integration of community-led advance care planning activities with primary care: a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process intended to help ensure people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals, and preferences during serious and chronic illness. Barriers to implementing ACP in primary care settings exist. Community-led ACP initiatives exist in British Columbia to engage the public directly. These initiatives may help prepare people for conversations with their primary care providers. The objectives of this study were to elicit primary care providers' perceptions of the utility and desired content of community-led ACP activities and suggestions for integrating community-led ACP activities with primary care. METHODS: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of primary care providers practicing in British Columbia, Canada in 2021. Both quantitative and qualitative survey questions addressed ACP engagement in practice, the perceived role and desired outcomes of community-led ACP activities, and ways to integrate community-led ACP activities with primary care. RESULTS: Eighty-one providers responded. Over 80% perceived a moderate or greater potential impact of community-led ACP activities. The most common reasons for not referring a patient to a community-led ACP activity were lack of awareness of the option locally (62.1%) and in general (44.8%). Respondents wanted their patients to reflect on their values, wishes and preferences for care, to have at least thought about their goals of care and to have chosen a substitute decision maker in the community. They indicated a desire for a summary of their patient's participation and a follow-up discussion with them about their ACP. They suggested ways to integrate referral to programs into existing health care system structures. CONCLUSIONS: Community-led ACP activities were perceived to be useful to engage and prepare patients to continue ACP discussions with clinicians. Efforts should be made to establish and integrate community-based ACP initiatives within existing primary care systems to ensure awareness and uptake.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".