Qualitative evaluation of the <scp>SHARING</scp> Choices trial of primary care advance care planning for adults with and without dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care can be an important setting for communication and advance care planning (ACP), including for those with dementia and their families. The study objective was to explore experiences with a pragmatic trial of a communication and ACP intervention, SHARING Choices, in primary care for older adults with and without dementia. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews using tailored semi-structured guides with three groups: ACP facilitators who conducted the intervention; clinicians, managers, and administrators from sites randomized to the intervention; and patients and families who met with ACP facilitators. We used thematic analysis to identify and synthesize emergent themes based on key Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research concepts and Proctor's Implementation Outcomes, triangulating the three groups' perspectives. RESULTS: We identified five key themes. For acceptability, perceptions of the intervention were mostly positive, although some components were not generally implemented. For adoption, respondents perceived that ACP facilitators mainly focused on conducting ACP, although facilitators often did not implement the ADRD and family engagement aspects with the ACP. For relational connections, ACP facilitator-practice and clinician communication and engagement were key to how the intervention was implemented. For adaptability, ACP facilitators and health systems adapted how the ACP facilitation component was implemented to local preferences and over time, given the pragmatic nature of the trial. And, for sustainability, ACP facilitators and clinicians/managers/facilitators were positive that the intervention should be continued but noted barriers to its sustainability. Patients and families generally did not recall the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: ACP facilitators and clinicians, managers, and administrators had positive perceptions of the ACP facilitator component of the intervention in this pragmatic trial with adaptation to local preferences. However, engaging those with dementia and families was more challenging in the implementation of this intervention.
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 | 0.082 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".