MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396991060 · doi:10.1681/asn.20223311s1562c

Informal Advance Care Planning in Black Patients With Kidney Failure

2022· article· en· W4396991060 on OpenAlexaff
Marlena Fisher, Deidra C. Crews, Nancy Perrin, Justin J. Sanders, Martha Abshire Saylor, Marie T. Nolan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensive care medicineMedicineAdvance care planningNephrologyKidneyUrologyInternal medicineNursingPalliative care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Research examining advance care planning (ACP) in kidney failure patients is primarily assessed in research by written advance directives. Black patients have limited representation in ACP research, and many prefer informal conversations. We examined the relationship of informal ACP conversations with personal, interpersonal, and structural level factors. Methods: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study including a survey and semi-structured interviews to identify personal, interpersonal, and structural factors related to engagement in informal ACP conversation. We conducted a survey of 280 Black patients who are on dialysis or have a history of being on dialysis. We conducted twenty semi-structured interviews using maximum variation sampling among survey respondents focused on the content, context, barriers and facilitators of informal ACP conversations. Multivariable logistic regression, thematic analysis, and triangulation were used to analyze the data. Results: Sixty-six percent engaged in an informal ACP conversation and 38% completed an advance directive. Of the 197 patients who engaged in informal ACP conversations, 51% also completed an advance directive. Mean age was 56 years, 52% were female, and 68% are currently treated with dialysis. In preliminary bivariate analyses of informal ACP, illness acceptance (OR 1.07, p=0.016), social support (emotional OR 1.12, p=0.002; Instrumental OR 1.09, p=0.005; informational OR 1.13, p=0.00), education (OR 1.32, p=0.18), and previous experience as a surrogate decision maker (OR 1.89, p=0.017) increased the likelihood of engaging in informal ACP. The interviews revealed that the content often includes financial, healthcare, and funeral planning wishes. These conversations often follow a health status change like a hospitalization or a worsening in their condition. Key facilitators were having a strong trusted social support system and past experience with ACP or a loved one dying. Barriers included distrust of family to carry out their wishes as outlined and a discomfort/avoidance of having informal ACP conversations. Conclusions: Informal ACP conversations with family occur more frequently than written directives in Black dialysis patients. Future efforts should assess the patient's social support system and target interventions to engage patients with limited support networks. Funding: Other NIH Support - National Institute of Nursing Research - F31, Sigma/HPNF End-of-Life Nursing Care Research Grant, Private Foundation Support

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→