OBJECTIVES: In advanced dementia, feeding problems are nearly universal, and families face difficult decisions about feeding options. Initial interviews for a randomized trial were used to describe surrogates' perceptions of feeding options, and to determine whether a decision aid on feeding options in advanced dementia would improve knowledge, reduce expectation of benefit from tube feeding, and reduce conflict over treatment choices for persons with advanced dementia. DESIGN: Semistructured interview with prestudy and poststudy design for surrogates in the intervention group. SETTING:Twenty-four skilled nursing facilities across North Carolina participating in a cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty-five surrogate decision makers for nursing home residents with advanced dementia and feeding problems, in control (n = 129) and intervention (n = 126) groups. INTERVENTION: For intervention surrogates only, an audiovisual-print decision aid provided information on dementia, feeding problems in dementia, advantages and disadvantages of feeding tubes or assisted oral feeding options, and the role of surrogates in making these decisions. MEASUREMENTS: The interview included open-ended items asking surrogates to report advantages and disadvantages of tube feeding and assisted oral feeding. Knowledge of feeding options was measured with 19 true/false items and items measuring expectation of benefit from tube feeding. Surrogates reported which of these two feeding options they preferred for the person with dementia, and how confident they were in this choice; their level of conflict about the choice was measured using the decisional conflict scale. RESULTS: Before the decision aid, surrogates described advantages and disadvantages of assisted oral feeding and tube feeding in practical, ethical, and medical terms. After review of the decision aid, intervention surrogates had improved knowledge scores (15.5 vs 16.8; P < .001), decreased expectation of benefits from tube feeding (2.73 vs 2.32; P = .001), and reduced decisional conflict (2.24 vs 1.91; P < .001). Surrogates preferred assisted oral feeding initially and reported more certainty about this choice after the decision aid. CONCLUSIONS: A structured decision aid can be used to improve decision making about feeding options in dementia care.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: In advanced dementia, feeding problems are nearly universal, and families face difficult decisions about feeding options. Initial interviews for a randomized trial were used to describe surrogates' perceptions of feeding options, and to determine whether a decision aid on feeding options in advanced dementia would improve knowledge, reduce expectation of benefit from tube feeding, and reduce conflict over treatment choices for persons with advanced dementia. DESIGN: Semistructured interview with prestudy and poststudy design for surrogates in the intervention group. SETTING: Twenty-four skilled nursing facilities across North Carolina participating in a cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty-five surrogate decision makers for nursing home residents with advanced dementia and feeding problems, in control (n = 129) and intervention (n = 126) groups. INTERVENTION: For intervention surrogates only, an audiovisual-print decision aid provided information on dementia, feeding problems in dementia, advantages and disadvantages of feeding tubes or assisted oral feeding options, and the role of surrogates in making these decisions. MEASUREMENTS: The interview included open-ended items asking surrogates to report advantages and disadvantages of tube feeding and assisted oral feeding. Knowledge of feeding options was measured with 19 true/false items and items measuring expectation of benefit from tube feeding. Surrogates reported which of these two feeding options they preferred for the person with dementia, and how confident they were in this choice; their level of conflict about the choice was measured using the decisional conflict scale. RESULTS: Before the decision aid, surrogates described advantages and disadvantages of assisted oral feeding and tube feeding in practical, ethical, and medical terms. After review of the decision aid, intervention surrogates had improved knowledge scores (15.5 vs 16.8; P < .001), decreased expectation of benefits from tube feeding (2.73 vs 2.32; P = .001), and reduced decisional conflict (2.24 vs 1.91; P < .001). Surrogates preferred assisted oral feeding initially and reported more certainty about this choice after the decision aid. CONCLUSIONS: A structured decision aid can be used to improve decision making about feeding options in dementia care.
Authors: Shubing Cai; Pedro L Gozalo; Susan L Mitchell; Sylvia Kuo; Julie P W Bynum; Vincent Mor; Joan M Teno Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Laura C Hanson; Timothy S Carey; Anthony J Caprio; Tae Joon Lee; Mary Ersek; Joanne Garrett; Anne Jackman; Robin Gilliam; Kathryn Wessell; Susan L Mitchell Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Laura C Hanson; Joanne M Garrett; Carmen Lewis; Nancy Phifer; Anne Jackman; Timothy S Carey Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Susan L Mitchell; Joan M Teno; Dan K Kiely; Michele L Shaffer; Richard N Jones; Holly G Prigerson; Ladislav Volicer; Jane L Givens; Mary Beth Hamel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Xuemei Cai; Jennifer Robinson; Susanne Muehlschlegel; Douglas B White; Robert G Holloway; Kevin N Sheth; Liana Fraenkel; David Y Hwang Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Andrea J Loizeau; Nathan Theill; Simon M Cohen; Stefanie Eicher; Susan L Mitchell; Silvio Meier; Michelle McDowell; Mike Martin; Florian Riese Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: C Adrian Austin; Dinushika Mohottige; Rebecca L Sudore; Alexander K Smith; Laura C Hanson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Mina K Chung; Angela Fagerlin; Paul J Wang; Tinuola B Ajayi; Larry A Allen; Tina Baykaner; Emelia J Benjamin; Megan Branda; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Lin Y Chen; George H Crossley; Rebecca K Delaney; Lee L Eckhardt; Kathleen L Grady; Ian G Hargraves; Mellanie True Hills; Matthew M Kalscheur; Daniel B Kramer; Marleen Kunneman; Rachel Lampert; Aisha T Langford; Krystina B Lewis; Ying Lu; John M Mandrola; Kathryn Martinez; Daniel D Matlock; Sarah R McCarthy; Victor M Montori; Peter A Noseworthy; Kate M Orland; Elissa Ozanne; Rod Passman; Krishna Pundi; Dan M Roden; Elizabeth V Saarel; Monika M Schmidt; Samuel F Sears; Dawn Stacey; Randall S Stafford; Benjamin A Steinberg; Sojin Youn Wass; Jennifer M Wright Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-12-06
Authors: Diane K Bunn; Asmaa Abdelhamid; Maddie Copley; Vicky Cowap; Angela Dickinson; Amanda Howe; Anne Killett; Fiona Poland; John F Potter; Kate Richardson; David Smithard; Chris Fox; Lee Hooper Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 3.921