Motivations for choosing “home” as one’s preferred place of death: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives While dying at home is often described as desirable, to our knowledge, no reviews have focused specifically on people’s reasons for wanting to die at home. This review describes the breadth of what is known about motivations, attitudes, ideas, and reasons underlying the decision to choose “home” as one’s preferred placed of death. Methods This review was guided by a scoping review methodology following a five-stage approach including: (1) identify the research question, (2) identify relevant studies, (3) select studies based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, (4) chart the data, and (5) summarize and report the results. Results Seventeen articles were identified that met inclusion/exclusion criteria and discussed motivations underlying people’s desires to die at home. Thirty-five percent of studies were from Canada ( n = 6/17), 29% were from Europe ( n = 5/17), and 29% were from Asia ( n = 5/17). Most studies ( n = 11/17) used methods that involved collecting and/or analyzing interview data from participants, while the remaining studies ( n = 6/17) used methods that involved administering and analyzing surveys or questionnaires. Characteristics of participants varied, but most commonly, studies included people with advanced illnesses who were nearing death (35% of studies, n = 6/17). Motivations for choosing a home death included desires to preserve a sense of self, factors relating to interpersonal relationships, and topics such as culture, religion, socioeconomic status, living situation, and lived experience. Significance of results The many interconnected reasons that lead people to choose a home death vary, as individuals have a range of motivations for choosing to die at home, which are highly influenced by contextual and cultural factors. Ultimately, this review will provide a comprehensive description of factors which may inform end-of-life planning, highlighting needs to be considered when planning the preferred location of a 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".