OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an advance directive redesigned to meet most adults' literacy needs (fifth grade reading level with graphics) was more useful for advance care planning than a standard form (>12th grade level). METHODS:We enrolled 205 English and Spanish-speaking patients, aged >/=50 years from an urban, general medicine clinic. We randomized participants to review either form. Main outcomes included acceptability and usefulness in advance care planning. Participants then reviewed the alternate form; we assessed form preference and six-month completion rates. RESULTS:Forty percent of enrolled participants had limited literacy. Compared to the standard form, the redesigned form was rated higher for acceptability and usefulness in care planning, P</=0.03, particularly for limited literacy participants (P for interaction </=0.07). The redesigned form was preferred by 73% of participants. More participants randomized to the redesigned form completed an advance directive at six months (19% vs. 8%, P=0.03); of these, 95% completed the redesigned form. CONCLUSIONS: The redesigned advance directive was rated more acceptable and useful for advance care planning and was preferred over a standard form. It also resulted in higher six-month completion rates. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An advance directive redesigned to meet most adults' literacy needs may better enable patients to engage in advance care planning.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an advance directive redesigned to meet most adults' literacy needs (fifth grade reading level with graphics) was more useful for advance care planning than a standard form (>12th grade level). METHODS: We enrolled 205 English and Spanish-speaking patients, aged >/=50 years from an urban, general medicine clinic. We randomized participants to review either form. Main outcomes included acceptability and usefulness in advance care planning. Participants then reviewed the alternate form; we assessed form preference and six-month completion rates. RESULTS: Forty percent of enrolled participants had limited literacy. Compared to the standard form, the redesigned form was rated higher for acceptability and usefulness in care planning, P</=0.03, particularly for limited literacy participants (P for interaction </=0.07). The redesigned form was preferred by 73% of participants. More participants randomized to the redesigned form completed an advance directive at six months (19% vs. 8%, P=0.03); of these, 95% completed the redesigned form. CONCLUSIONS: The redesigned advance directive was rated more acceptable and useful for advance care planning and was preferred over a standard form. It also resulted in higher six-month completion rates. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An advance directive redesigned to meet most adults' literacy needs may better enable patients to engage in advance care planning.
Authors: T C Davis; J A Bocchini; D Fredrickson; C Arnold; E J Mayeaux; P W Murphy; R H Jackson; N Hanna; M Paterson Journal: Pediatrics Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: J C Hofmann; N S Wenger; R B Davis; J Teno; A F Connors; N Desbiens; J Lynn; R S Phillips Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1997-07-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Laurie T Martin; Ann Haas; Matthias Schonlau; Kathryn Pitkin Derose; Lindsay Rosenfeld; Rima Rudd; Stephen L Buka Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Sarah S Nouri; Deborah E Barnes; Aiesha M Volow; Ryan D McMahan; Margot Kushel; Chengshi Jin; John Boscardin; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Adam D Schickedanz; Dean Schillinger; C Seth Landefeld; Sara J Knight; Brie A Williams; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.562