Data from: Measuring engagement in advance care planning: a cross-sectional multicentre feasibility study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractObjectives: To assess feasibility, acceptability, and clinical sensibility of a novel survey, the Advance Care Planning (ACP) Engagement Survey in various health care settings. Setting: A target sample of 50 patients from each of primary care, hospital, cancer care, and dialysis care settings. Participants: A convenience sample of patients without cognitive impairment who could speak and read English was recruited. Patients 50 years and older were eligible in primary care; patients 80 and older or 55 years and older with clinical markers of advanced chronic disease were recruited in hospital; patients aged 19 and older were recruited in cancer and renal dialysis centres. Outcomes: We assessed feasibility, acceptability and clinical sensibility of the ACP Engagement Survey using a 6-point scale. The ACP Engagement Survey measures ACP processes (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy, readiness) on 5-point Likert scales and actions (yes/no). Results: 196 patients (38 to 96 years old, 50.5% women) participated. Mean (±standard deviation) time to administer was 48.8 ±19.6 minutes. Mean acceptability scores ranged from 3.2±1.3 in hospital to 4.7±0.9 in primary care and mean relevance ranged from 3.5±1.0 in hospital to 4.9±0.9 in dialysis centres (p values <0.001 for both). The mean process score was 3.1±0.6 and the mean action score was 11.2±5.6 (of a possible 25). Conclusions: The ACP Engagement Survey demonstrated feasibility and acceptability in out-patient settings, but was less feasible and acceptable among hospitalized patients due to length. A shorter version may improve feasibility. Engagement in ACP was low to moderate.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".