MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402325512 · doi:10.1136/spcare-2024-anzspm.18

OP-18 Understanding peaceful dying among Canada’s elderly

2024· article· en· W4402325512 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSociologyGerontologyPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Death is a universal phenomenon that is an intrinsic part of the human experience and a cornerstone of clinical science, yet little is known about how Canadians experience death.<sup>1-3</sup> We examined novel data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging to describe peace with dying among older Canadians and examine correlates.<sup>4</sup> <h3>Methods</h3> We conducted a secondary analysis of decedent interview data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) in Canada. Next of kin and proxies of deceased CLSA participants were interviewed and reported on the End-of-Life (EoL) experiences of participants who died between January 2012 to March 2022. We examined EoL characteristics, including the location of death, cause of death, arrangements for health care decision making, and arrangements for end-of-life care decision making and their association with dying peacefully. Regression methods identified the association between demographic and EoL characteristics in experiencing peace with dying. <h3>Results</h3> There were 3,672 total deceased participants at the CLSA and 1,287 had completed a decedent questionnaire. Sampled decedents (55.3%) were 75 years old or older at death, 62.0% were male, 62.7% were married, and 39.7% died of cancer. Next of kins reported that 66.0% of the deceased experienced peace with dying, 7.0% were ‘somewhat’ at peace with dying, and 17% did not experience peace with dying. A peaceful death was more likely if the deceased was older (75+; OR 1.55; CI 1.04–2.30), widowed (OR 1.53; CI 1.12–2.10), died of cancer (OR 1.71; CI 1.27–2.30), died in hospice/palliative care (OR 1.67; CI 1.19–2.37) and having an appointed EoL decision making power of attorney (OR 1.80; CI 1.39–2.33). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Many older Canadian do not experience peace with dying which underscores the greater public need and demand for health system focus on improving the quality of death.<sup>5 6</sup> Our findings support the presumption of effectiveness for end-of-life programs as well as programs that include advanced planning regarding wishes and decision making as potentially modifiable factors to support quality of death. A person’s experience with close family member death, predictability of course of illness, and strength of close social bonds are less modifiable factors that can support how end of life programs are designed and targeted. <h3>References</h3> Ko E, Kwak J, Nelson-Becker H. What constitutes a good and bad death?: Perspectives of homeless older adults. <i>Death Studies</i>. 2015;<b>39</b>:422–32. Georges JJ, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, van der Heide A, van der Wal G, van der Maas PJ. Symptoms, treatment and ‘dying peacefully’ in terminally ill cancer patients: a prospective study. <i>Support Care Cancer</i>. 2005;<b>13</b>:160–8. Teno JM, FreedmanV. A., Kasper, J. D., Gozalo P., Mor, V. Is care for the dying improving in the United States? Journal of palliative medicine. 2015;<b>18</b>:662–6. Van Soest-Poortvliet MC, van der Steen JT, Zimmerman S, Cohen LW, Munn J, Achterberg WP, <i>et al</i>. Measuring the quality of dying and quality of care when dying in long-term care settings: a qualitative content analysis of available instruments.<i> J Pain Symptom Manage</i>. 2011;<b>42</b>:852–63. De Roo ML, van der Steen, J. T., Galindo Garre, F., Van Den Noortgate, N., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Deliens, L., EURO IMPACT.When do people with dementia die peacefully? An analysis of data collected prospectively in long-term care settings.<i>Palliative Medicine</i>. 2014;<b>28</b>:210–9. Diaconu V, Ouellette, N., Camarda, C. G., Bourbeau, R.Insight on ‘typical’longevity: An analysis of the modal lifespan by leading causes of death in Canada.<i> Demographic Research</i>. 2016;<b> 35</b>:471–504.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.154 · 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