1293 A comparative study of implementation and practices of advance care planning in the Asia Pacific Region
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Aim</h3> This study aims to examine the implementation and practices of Advance Care Planning (ACP) across the Asia Pacific region. We had two research questions: How is ACP conceptualized, initiated, and made accessible across Asia Pacific sectors? What unique factors shape ACP practices in this region? <h3>Background</h3> The Asia Pacific region is experiencing a rapid increase in aging population, thus creating a critical need for ACP to support individuals in living well till the end-of-life. Despite growing interest, ACP implementation varies significantly across sectors, influenced by cultural, social, and policy differences. This study aims to map the ACP landscape among members of the Asia Pacific Hospice Palliative Care Network (APHN). <h3>Methods</h3> An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2022, with purposively sampled experts and leaders in ACP practice. They are from APHN member sectors, each with at least five years of ACP-related experience. Forty experts from 15 of the 18 APHN sectors responded to a 22-item questionnaire, with multiple experts from each sector included to enable triangulation of responses. <h3>Results</h3> ACP is a recent development in the Asia Pacific compared to Western regions, with a diversity of approaches in its conceptualization, initiation, and accessibility. Notably in Taiwan, New Zealand, and Singapore, national or organizational ACP programs were associated with greater perceived uptake and accessibility. In Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam, a family-based ACP model predominates, with discussions often conducted with family members before involving patients. Key barriers to ACP adoption include insufficient healthcare professional empowerment (13 of 15), persistent social taboos (11 of 15), and limited public awareness (9 of 15 sectors). <h3>Unique Contribution</h3> This study provides the first cross-sectoral comparison of ACP practices across the Asia Pacific region, highlighting how cultural, organizational, and policy contexts influence ACP approaches. It underscores the variation in family-based ACP models and identifies barriers in some levels, offering insight into unique factors that may support or hinder ACP integration in the region. <h3>Implications for Policy or Practice</h3> The findings suggest a need for culturally adaptive ACP policies and practices that respect family-based decision-making traditions while considering individual empowerment in the Asia Pacific region. Policymakers should consider establishing national frameworks, improving public awareness, and offering specialized training to healthcare professionals to enhance ACP accessibility and acceptance. This approach can create a more supportive environment for ACP adoption across the Asia Pacific region.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it