The Cultural Differences in Perceived Value of Disclosure and Cognition: Spain and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A previous multicentre international study on sedation at the end of life has detected major differences between Canadian and Spanish patients. This was particularly evident in the need to sedate Spanish patients for psychological/existential distress. This study was designed to explore the hypothesis that marked differences in the value patients and families attach to disclosure and cognition were a factor. The study population included patients referred to two palliative care consulting services based in acute care hospitals in Madrid, Spain (M), and in Edmonton, Canada (E). Questions addressed the issue of clear thinking, pain/nausea-medication-induced somnolence/confusion, anxiety/antidepressant-medication-induced somnolence/confusion, details of diagnosis. One hundred patients were evaluated on each site. Patients and families in E placed a higher value on clear thinking, change in medication causing somnolence/confusion, and wanting full disclosure. Patients and families in E agreed almost 100% of the time, while agreement in M varied from 42% to 67%. These results suggest major differences in the perceived value of clear cognition and disclosure of information between patients and families in E and M. The lack of agreement between patients and families in M is a further significant factor that may complicate communication with patients and families, as well as medical management.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".