MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408648357 · doi:10.1186/s12904-025-01720-7

How to define and quantify a bad death in palliative home care? Across-sectional and exploratory study using Canadian interRAI data

2025· article· en· W4408648357 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amanda Mofina, Nicole Williams, John P. Hirdes, Gary Cheung, James Downar, Kieran L. Quinn, Dawn M. Guthrie

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Palliative Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of OttawaWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of TorontoSinai Health SystemUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsLonelinessMedicinePalliative carePopulationCross-sectional studyCause of deathGerontologyDemographyPsychiatryDiseaseNursingEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dying is a complex process comprised of physical, social, cultural, spiritual, environmental, and interpersonal relationship factors that contribute to both good and bad death experiences. Bad deaths have historically been explored with a qualitative lens. This study aimed to identify key indicators of a bad death and examine predictors for each indicator using population-level data. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed routinely collected clinical and sociodemographic data using the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC) between April 2007 and March 2020. 16,586 home care clients aged 18 years and older who died and had an assessment completed within 30 days of their death were included. Four indicators of a bad death were examined: self-reported loneliness, severe depressive symptoms, daily pain that is horrible or excruciating, and pain that is severe/excruciating and uncontrolled by medications. These indicators were interRAI specific variables that captured common bad death constructs in the existing literature. The study sample was separated into groups based on these four indicators and each individual could populate more than one group. Chi-square analyses were used to examine the relationship between potential risk factors and each bad death indicator. RESULTS: Of the total sample, 50.9% were 85 + years of age, and 54.7% were female. The prevalence of experiencing at least one of the bad death indicators was 33.5%. Each indicator significantly increased the likelihood of experiencing one of the other indicators with the ORs ranging from 1.70 to 3.26. Other important predictors that increased the odds of experiencing each bad death indicator included: any psychiatric diagnoses (OR range: 1.29-1.89), experiencing conflict with family or friends (OR range: 1.21-3.40), and a decline in social interaction which was distressing to the person (OR range: 2.06-3.70). CONCLUSIONS: These four bad death indicators were common among community-dwelling adults. This study found that there was an interconnectedness between the bad death indicators. Clinically, the relationship between these indicators means that addressing one aspect of a bad death may positively influence the others. Early identification of these issues, along with client and family collaboration, can aid in optimizing the likelihood of a good death.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207