Adults’ End-of-Life Wishes Beyond Clinical and Legal Tools: Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Research on end-of-life wishes (EoLW) primarily focuses on the elderly or ill individuals, limiting reflection to specific moments within life trajectories. Drawing on Patterson and Hazelwood (2020), this article proposes 4 dimensions of EoLW: medical care, legal considerations, personal priorities, and socio-spiritual well-being. While numerous knowledge syntheses explore EoLW, they primarily focus on the first 2 dimensions, overlooking aspects that are nonetheless essential to true person-centered end-of-life planning. Objective: To map the extent and nature of knowledge on personal priorities and socio-spiritual well-being dimensions of EoLW and to identify trends, gaps, and implications for research and practice. Method: This scoping review follows the 6-step methodology of Levac et al. (2010) and queries scientific (CINAHL Complete, Érudit, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, Social Work Abstracts and Web of science) and grey literature (Dissertations & Theses Global and Sociological Abstracts) databases. Literature published from 2015 onwards, in English or French, will be systematically identified and selected through an independent double anonymous review process. Discussion and Research Spin-offs: We will identify the contexts in which these 2 dimensions are operationalized, the research methodologies used and any knowledge gaps in the current state of research. Engagement with key stakeholders in the 6th stage of this scoping review will facilitate the synthesis of critical insights to better inform practice, influence policy development, and guide future research.
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 | 0.118 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.017 |
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".