ACP Conversations with Chinese and South Asian Patients: Physicians’ Perspectives of Barriers and Facilitating Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction/Objective: Advance Care Planning (ACP) discussions are infrequently conducted with physicians, even fewer among minorities. We explored physicians' experiences in engaging Chinese (CH) and South Asian (SA) patients in ACP conversations to understand initiation and participation patterns, topics covered, and barriers and facilitating factors. Method: Twenty-two physicians with 15%+ SA patients aged 55+ and 19 with 15%+ CH patients aged 55+ were interviewed. Results: SA- and CH-serving physicians described similar initiation patterns, cultural context, and need for standardized ACP routines. However, the SA-serving physicians described greater involvement of family members, while CH-serving physicians described more communication barriers and family members' desire to hide the diagnosis from patients. Conclusion: Cultural taboos surrounding discussion around death and dying appear to influence CH older adults and families strongly. Lack of familiarity with ACP amongst the SA population accounts more for their limited engagement in ACP discussions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".