Family Members’ Experiences Communicating with Coroners in Suspected Hereditary Sudden Cardiac Death Cases: A Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background As SCD in the young can be caused by heritable cardiac conditions, up to 50% of family members may be at risk. Coroners are often responsible for communicating this risk, in addition to investigating the cause of death. Purpose To explore how family members of SCD victims experience the type, timing, and suitability of communication with coroners about the cause of death and their own risk for SCD. Methods We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Eligible family members of SCD victims who died in 2021 from a potentially heritable cardiac condition and were investigated by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario (Canada) were invited tocomplete a web survey and/or telephone interview. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the survey data and thematic analysis to analyze the interview data. Integration occurred at multiple levels. Results We sent survey invitations to 126 family members of 115 SCD victims; 50 family members completed the web-based survey between September 2022 and February 2024. We interviewed a subset of 17 family members. Most participants received initial communication by phone (n=30, 60%) or in-person (n=13, 26%). While many participants (n=39; 78%) received a timeline of when to expect death investigation results, 16 (32%) did not receive results within the expected timeframe. Family members characterized effective communication as clear, with coroners being perceived as kind, accessible, and approachable. When communication needs went unmet, families relied on external support networks to fill information gaps. Suggestions for improved communication included repeating information and using differing modes of communication to enhance understanding. Conclusions These findings emphasize the need for coroners to adopt empathetic approaches and to deliver information in a timely and clear manner. Addressing current gaps in communication may ensure the needs of grieving family members of SCD victims are met. What is Known - The unexpected and sometimes unclear cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD), particularly in young persons, leaves families grieving, often with unanswered questions. - In many jurisdictions, coroners investigate SCDs and have the most information regarding the circumstances and possible causes. - Communication with coroners influences families’ experiences with respect to learning about the cause of death and their own personal risk for a heritable cardiac condition. What this Study Adds - Family members of SCD victims seek clarity, accessibility, approachability, and kindness in their interactions with coroners. - When family members’ communication needs went unmet, many independently sought resources and support networks outside the coroner system. - Family members recommend improving coroner communication by providing clear timelines for death investigation results, repeating key information using several different modes of communication, and directing the family to counseling resources.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".