Minal S Kale1, Katherine A Ornstein2,3, Cardinale B Smith3,4, Amy S Kelley3,5. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. minal.kale@mountsinai.org. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. Hertzberg Palliative Care Institute, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 4. Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 5. Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Centers, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of end-of-life (EOL) conversations with older adults. DESIGN: National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a prospective, longitudinal survey of Medicare beneficiaries. SETTING: Nationally representative. PARTICIPANTS: A sample drawn from Wave 2 of the NHATS. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome was the report of an EOL planning discussion, based upon the participant's response to the question "Have you talked to anyone about the types of medical treatment you would want or not want if you became seriously ill in the future?" RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of the sample (n = 1,993 individuals, weighted n = 11,123,910) responded that they had discussed EOL treatment preferences with someone. In multivariate regression, factors associated with reporting an EOL discussion included being younger (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.17-2.47), having more education (high school degree: AOR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.02-2.07; some college: AOR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.40-2.95), and having multiple chronic conditions (AOR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.01-1.55). Black race was associated with lower odds of reporting a discussion (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33-0.65). CONCLUSION: Forty percent of a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries had not discussed their preferences regarding EOL medical treatment. Promoting these conversations in clinical and nonclinical settings will be important to ensure that health care is delivered to individuals in a person-centered manner.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of end-of-life (EOL) conversations with older adults. DESIGN: National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a prospective, longitudinal survey of Medicare beneficiaries. SETTING: Nationally representative. PARTICIPANTS: A sample drawn from Wave 2 of the NHATS. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome was the report of an EOL planning discussion, based upon the participant's response to the question "Have you talked to anyone about the types of medical treatment you would want or not want if you became seriously ill in the future?" RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of the sample (n = 1,993 individuals, weighted n = 11,123,910) responded that they had discussed EOL treatment preferences with someone. In multivariate regression, factors associated with reporting an EOL discussion included being younger (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.17-2.47), having more education (high school degree: AOR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.02-2.07; some college: AOR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.40-2.95), and having multiple chronic conditions (AOR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.01-1.55). Black race was associated with lower odds of reporting a discussion (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33-0.65). CONCLUSION: Forty percent of a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries had not discussed their preferences regarding EOL medical treatment. Promoting these conversations in clinical and nonclinical settings will be important to ensure that health care is delivered to individuals in a person-centered manner.
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Vicki A Freedman; Judith D Kasper; Brenda C Spillman; Emily M Agree; Vincent Mor; Robert B Wallace; Douglas A Wolf Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Karen Barnett; Stewart W Mercer; Michael Norbury; Graham Watt; Sally Wyke; Bruce Guthrie Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Justin J Sanders; Anna I Berrier; Léonce Nshuti; James A Tulsky; Charlotta Lindvall Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nebras Abu Al Hamayel; Sarina R Isenberg; Joshua Sixon; Katherine Clegg Smith; Samantha I Pitts; Sydney M Dy; Susan M Hannum Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Frances R Nedjat-Haiem; Iraida V Carrion; Krystyna Gonzalez; Alejandra Quintana; Kathleen Ell; Mary O'Connell; Beti Thompson; Shiraz I Mishra Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Deepshikha Charan Ashana; Xiaoxue Chen; Abiy Agiro; Gayathri Sridhar; Ann Nguyen; John Barron; Kevin Haynes; Michael Fisch; David Debono; Scott D Halpern; Michael O Harhay Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-11-01