‘I am old, and I will rather abandon life with my eyes open’: a qualitative study of Norwegians aged 80 and older explaining their intensive care unit admission preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment preferences of patients aged 80 and older in the event of acute critical illness vary widely and are difficult to predict. To provide the appropriate level of care, it is necessary to better understand their personal treatment goals. OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into the underlying reasoning for intensive care unit (ICU) admission preferences in hypothetical events of acute critical illness stated by Norwegian survey respondents aged 80 and over. METHODS: A purposive sample of 202 Norwegian outpatients ≥80 years old who were considered potential ICU candidates provided 297 free-text comments to elaborate on their ICU admission choices in hypothetical scenarios of acute critical illness. Data were collected from November 2021 to March 2023 and analysed by Systematic Text Condensation, a method for thematic cross-case analysis. A theoretical framework for autonomy and trust in modern bioethics was utilized to focus the analysis. MAIN FINDINGS: All four main findings comprised descriptions of how the respondents sought to exercise autonomy. They explained their ICU admission preferences by (i) desiring to control the uncontrollable, (ii) prioritizing outcomes of importance to them, (iii) placing trust and (iv) accepting a larger context. We identified patterns ranging from the individual autonomy of varying degrees of action to the principled autonomy of obligation. Several justifications were relevant to different treatment choices. CONCLUSION: Despite variable expressions through different justifications, our findings highlight the need for a greater understanding of older patients' requirements for autonomy and a strong patient-centred focus in ICU admission decision-making.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".