A palliative care goals model for people with dementia and their family: Consensus achieved in an international Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning in dementia includes supporting the person and their family to consider important goals of care. International research reports the importance of psycho-social-spiritual aspects towards end of life. AIM: To develop a multidimensional international palliative care goals model in dementia for use in practice. DESIGN: International Delphi study integrating consensus and evidence from a meta-qualitative study. The Delphi panel rated statements about the model on a 5-point agreement scale. The criteria for consensus were pre-specified. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen researchers from eight countries developed an initial model, and 169 candidate panellists were invited to the international online Delphi study. RESULTS: Panellists (107; response 63.3%) resided in 33 countries. The model comprised four main care goals: (1) Comfort ensured; (2) Control over function maintained; (3) Identity protected and personhood respected and (4) Coping with grief and loss-person and caregiver supported. The model reflects how needs and care goals change over time with the progression of dementia, concluding with bereavement support. The first version of the model achieved a consensus after which it was slightly refined based on feedback. We did not achieve a consensus on adding a goal of life prolongation, and on use of the model by people with dementia and family themselves. CONCLUSION: A new palliative care goals model for people with dementia and their families includes relationship aspects for use by professionals and achieved a consensus among a panel with diverse cultural background. The position of life prolongation in relation to palliative care goals needs further research.
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 | 0.176 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".