OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a simple tool to elicit the preferences of older persons based on prioritization of universal health outcomes. METHODS: Persons age ≥ 65 participating in a larger study were asked to rank 4 outcomes on a visual analogue scale: (1) maintaining independence, (2) staying alive, (3) reducing/eliminating pain, (4) reducing/eliminating other symptoms. RESULTS: Interviewers rated 73% of the 81 participants as having good to excellent understanding, and cognitive interviews demonstrated the tool captured how participants thought about trade-offs. Test-retest reliability was fair to poor for ranking most of the outcomes as either most or least important (kappa .28-1.0). Patient characteristics associated with ranking "keeping you alive" as most important have been shown to be associated with a preference for life-sustaining treatment, a related construct. There was substantial variability in the outcome ranked as most important. CONCLUSIONS: The task of ranking 4 universal health outcomes was well understood, captured what was important when considering trade-offs, and demonstrated content validity. However, test-retest reliability was fair to poor. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a simple tool to elicit the preferences of older persons based on prioritization of universal health outcomes. METHODS:Persons age ≥ 65 participating in a larger study were asked to rank 4 outcomes on a visual analogue scale: (1) maintaining independence, (2) staying alive, (3) reducing/eliminating pain, (4) reducing/eliminating other symptoms. RESULTS: Interviewers rated 73% of the 81 participants as having good to excellent understanding, and cognitive interviews demonstrated the tool captured how participants thought about trade-offs. Test-retest reliability was fair to poor for ranking most of the outcomes as either most or least important (kappa .28-1.0). Patient characteristics associated with ranking "keeping you alive" as most important have been shown to be associated with a preference for life-sustaining treatment, a related construct. There was substantial variability in the outcome ranked as most important. CONCLUSIONS: The task of ranking 4 universal health outcomes was well understood, captured what was important when considering trade-offs, and demonstrated content validity. However, test-retest reliability was fair to poor. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Authors: M B Hamel; J M Teno; L Goldman; J Lynn; R B Davis; A N Galanos; N Desbiens; A F Connors; N Wenger; R S Phillips Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1999-01-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: L A O'Brien; J A Grisso; G Maislin; K LaPann; K P Krotki; P J Greco; E A Siegert; L K Evans Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-12-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Karen B Eden; James G Dolan; Nancy A Perrin; Dundar Kocaoglu; Nicholas Anderson; James Case; Jeanne-Marie Guise Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Tina Hsu; Elizabeth R Kessler; Ira R Parker; William Dale; Ajeet Gajra; Holly M Holmes; Ronald J Maggiore; Allison Magnuson; June M McKoy; Arti Hurria Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-04-01
Authors: Michael A Steinman; Andrew R Zullo; Yoojin Lee; Lori A Daiello; W John Boscardin; David D Dore; Siqi Gan; Kathy Fung; Sei J Lee; Kiya D R Komaiko; Vincent Mor Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873