Literature DB >> 17447099

The influence of default options on the expression of end-of-life treatment preferences in advance directives.

Laura M Kressel1, Gretchen B Chapman, Elaine Leventhal.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Advance directives promise to preserve patient autonomy, but research indicates that end-of-life preferences can be influenced by the way in which questions are posed.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether preferences expressed by geriatric patients on advance directives are influenced by the default response inherent in the question.
DESIGN: Mailed survey containing 1 of 3 versions of an advance directive.
SETTING: General internal medicine outpatient medical practice. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients aged 65 or older (n = 106, response rate = 27%).
INTERVENTIONS: In the "withhold" version of the survey, participants indicated situations where they would want treatments withheld (i.e., the default preference was in favor of treatment). In the "provide" version, participants indicated situations where they would want treatment provided (i.e., the default preference was against treatment). In the forced-choice control version, participants made an explicit decision to withhold or provide treatment for each situation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Participants' treatment preferences.
RESULTS: Preferences differed by condition, F(2, 103) = 3.61, MSE = 0.09, eta2 = .07, p = .03. Participants tended to express the default preference, and thus, were more likely to favor treatment in the "withhold" condition than in the "provide" condition. Preferences in the forced-choice control condition were intermediate.
CONCLUSIONS: The default inherent in a question can impact preferences for medical treatment. This default effect limits the utility of advance directives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17447099      PMCID: PMC2583800          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-007-0204-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  9 in total

1.  Medicine. Do defaults save lives?

Authors:  Eric J Johnson; Daniel Goldstein
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-11-21       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Enough. The failure of the living will.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Carl E Schneider
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.683

Review 3.  Advance directives and cancer decision making near the end of life.

Authors:  Peter H Ditto; Nikki A Hawkins
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  Recommendations implicit in policy defaults.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie; Michael J Liersch; Stacey R Finkelstein
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-05

5.  Making better decisions: from measuring to constructing preferences.

Authors:  Eric J Johnson; Mary Steffel; Daniel G Goldstein
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.267

6.  Accuracy of primary care and hospital-based physicians' predictions of elderly outpatients' treatment preferences with and without advance directives.

Authors:  K M Coppola; P H Ditto; J H Danks; W D Smucker
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2001-02-12

7.  Advance directives as acts of communication: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  P H Ditto; J H Danks; W D Smucker; J Bookwala; K M Coppola; R Dresser; A Fagerlin; R M Gready; R M Houts; L K Lockhart; S Zyzanski
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2001-02-12

8.  Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives.

Authors:  D A Redelmeier; E Shafir
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-25       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  The default effect in end-of-life medical treatment preferences.

Authors:  Laura M Kressel; Gretchen B Chapman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

  9 in total
  8 in total

1.  The Language of End-of-Life Decision Making: A Simulation Study.

Authors:  Annie Lu; Deepika Mohan; Stewart C Alexander; Craig Mescher; Amber E Barnato
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 2.947

2.  Toward ethically responsible choice architecture in prostate cancer treatment decision-making.

Authors:  J S Blumenthal-Barby; Denise Lee; Robert J Volk
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Default options in advance directives influence how patients set goals for end-of-life care.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; George Loewenstein; Kevin G Volpp; Elizabeth Cooney; Kelly Vranas; Caroline M Quill; Mary S McKenzie; Michael O Harhay; Nicole B Gabler; Tatiana Silva; Robert Arnold; Derek C Angus; Cindy Bryce
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 4.  Default options in the ICU: widely used but insufficiently understood.

Authors:  Joanna Hart; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.687

5.  Higher Quality and Lower Cost from Improving Hospital Discharge Decision Making.

Authors:  James C Cox; Vjollca Sadiraj; Kurt E Schnier; John F Sweeney
Journal:  J Econ Behav Organ       Date:  2015-04-03

6.  To what extent are the wishes of a signatory reflected in their advance directive: a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Friedemann Nauck; Matthias Becker; Claudius King; Lukas Radbruch; Raymond Voltz; Birgit Jaspers
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  The utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners' perspective.

Authors:  Ina Carola Otte; Bernice Elger; Corinna Jung; Klaus Walter Bally
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-06

8.  Intuitive vs Deliberative Approaches to Making Decisions About Life Support: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Emily B Rubin; Anna E Buehler; Elizabeth Cooney; Nicole B Gabler; Adjoa A Mante; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-01-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.