| Literature DB >> 28407800 |
Tobias Luck1, Francisca S Rodriguez2,3,4, Birgitt Wiese5, Carolin van der Leeden6, Kathrin Heser7, Horst Bickel8, Jürgen In der Schmitten9, Hans-Helmut Koenig10, Siegfried Weyerer11, Silke Mamone5, Tina Mallon6, Michael Wagner7,12, Dagmar Weeg8, Angela Fuchs9, Christian Brettschneider10, Jochen Werle11, Martin Scherer6, Wolfgang Maier7,12, Steffi G Riedel-Heller2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Completion of advance directives (ADs) and power of attorney (POA) documents may protect a person's autonomy in future health care situations when the individual lacks decisional capacity. As such situations become naturally much more common in old age, we specifically aimed at providing information on (i) the frequency of ADs/POA in oldest-old individuals and (ii) factors associated with having completed ADs/POA.Entities:
Keywords: Advance care planning; Advance directives; Frequency; Oldest-old age; Power of attorney; Prevalence; Primary care
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28407800 PMCID: PMC5390475 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-017-0482-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Characteristics of the study participants with and without ADs and POA for health care
| Characteristic | Study participants with and without ADs ( | Study participants with and without POA ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individuals with ADs ( | Individuals without ADs ( | Test values |
| Individuals with POA ( | Individuals without POA ( | Test values |
| |
| Age | ||||||||
| Years, mean (SD) | 88.6 (2.9) | 88.8 (3.1) |
| 0.676 | 88.6 (2.9) | 88.8 (3.0) |
| 0.474 |
| Gender; n (%) | ||||||||
| Female | 327 (67.3) | 126 (65.6) | χ2 = 0.171 | 0.679 | 308 (67.7) | 137 (64.9) | χ2 = 0.496 | 0.481 |
| Male | 159 (32.7) | 66 (43.4) | 147 (32.3) | 74 (65.1) | ||||
| Educationa; n (%) | ||||||||
| Low | 251 (51.6) | 121 (63.0) | χ2 = 7.194 | 0.027 | 239 (52.5) | 125 (59.2) | χ2 = 2.686 | 0.261 |
| Medium | 163 (33.5) | 49 (25.5) | 149 (32.7) | 58 (27.5) | ||||
| High | 72 (14.8) | 22 (11.5) | 67 (14.7) | 28 (13.3) | ||||
| Family status; n (%) | ||||||||
| Single | 33 (6.8) | 12 (6.2) | χ2 = 2.893 | 0.408 | 27 (5.9) | 17 (8.1) | χ2 = 1.814 | 0.612 |
| Married | 123 (25.3) | 46 (24.0) | 116 (25.5) | 49 (23.2) | ||||
| Divorced | 26 (5.3) | 5 (2.6) | 20 (4.4) | 12 (5.7) | ||||
| Widowed | 304 (62.6) | 129 (67.2) | 292 (64.2) | 133 (63.0) | ||||
| Living situation; n (%) | ||||||||
| Private household, alone | 246 (50.6) | 110 (57.3) | χ2 = 3.692 | 0.158 | 224 (49.2) | 124 (58.8) | χ2 = 8.032 | 0.018 |
| Private household, with others (partner, relative, etc.) | 153 (31.5) | 58 (30.2) | 146 (32.1) | 64 (30.3) | ||||
| Assisted living/nursing home/retirement home | 87 (17.9) | 24 (12.5) | 85 (18.7) | 23 (10.9) | ||||
| Subjective Cognitive Decline; n (%) | ||||||||
| Yes | 301 (61.9) | 118 (61.5) | χ2 = 0.047 | 0.977 | 276 (60.7) | 131 (62.1) | χ2 = 0.132 | 0.936 |
| MMSEb,c | ||||||||
| Score, mean (SD) | 28.1 (1.8) | 27.6 (1.9) |
| 0.002 | 28.1 (1.7) | 27.6 (1.9) |
| 0.001 |
| Self-rated healthd,e | ||||||||
| EQ VAS score, mean (SD) | 62.1 (18.9) | 63.3 (18.6) |
| 0.461 | 62.5 (19.0) | 62.0 (18.3) |
| 0.775 |
| Depressionf,g; n (%) | ||||||||
| Yes | 73 (15.1) | 24 (12.5) | χ2 = 0.746 | 0.388 | 63 (13.9) | 31 (14.7) | χ2 = 0.037 | 0.787 |
| Frailtyh | ||||||||
| CSHA CFS score; mean (SD) | 3.8 (1.4) | 3.8 (1.4) | U = 46,378.500 | 0.902 | 3.8 (1.4) | 3.8 (1.3) | U = 47,419.000 | 0.796 |
| Basic ADLi,j | ||||||||
| Barthel Index score; mean (SD) | 92.6 (12.9) | 93.2 (12.2) | U = 45,808.500 | 0.714 | 92.8 (13.1) | 92.2 (12.7) | U = 45,469.500 | 0.286 |
| Instrumental ADLk | ||||||||
| IADL score; mean (SD) | 6.2 (1.9) | 6.3 (1.9) | U = 44,498.500 | 0.333 | 6.2 (1.9) | 6.3 (1.9) | U = 46,996.000 | 0.653 |
AD advance directives, ADL activitities of daily living, CSHA CFS Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale, EQ VAS EQ visual analogue scale, IADL instrumental activities of daily living, MMSE Mini-Mental-State Examination, POA power of attorney, U Mann-Whitney U
aaccording to the new CASMIN educational classification [21]
bmissing data for n = 14 (2.1%) participants in the analysis for ADs and n = 13 (2.0%) in the analysis for POA
cThe higher the MMSE score, the better the cognition [18]
dmissing data for n = 8 (1.2%) participants in the analysis for ADs and n = 8 (1.2%) in the analysis for POA
eThe higher the EQ VAS score, the better the self-rated health [27, 28]
fmissing data for n = 2 (0.3%) participants in the analysis for ADs n = 2 (0.3%) in the analysis for POA
ga score ≥ 6 on the Geriatric Depression Scale [25, 26]
hThe higher the CSHA CFS score, the stronger the frailty [24]
imissing data for n = 1 (0.1%) participants in the analysis for ADs and n = 2 (0.3%) in the analysis for POA
jThe higher the score, the better the functioning in basic ADL [22]
kThe higher the score, the better the functioning in IADL [23]
Multivariable logistic regression on the association between having ADs for health care and participants’ characteristicsa, b
| Characteristicc | df | Wald’s χ2 |
| OR | 95%-CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Educationd | |||||
| Medium vs. low | 1 | 4.886 | 0.027 | 1.56 | 1.05–2.30 |
| High vs. low | 1 | 1.999 | 0.157 | 1.47 | 0.86–2.50 |
| MMSE score; every additional pointe | 1 | 8.955 | 0.003 | 1.15 | 1.05–1.26 |
CI confidence interval, df degree of freedom, MMSE Mini-Mental-State Examination, OR odds ratio
amissing data for n = 23 (3.9%) of the 678 participants
bbackward elimination; Nagelkerke’s R2 of the model =0.034
cAge, gender, family status, living situation, subjectively perceived cognitive decline, self-rated health, depression, frailty, and basic and instrumental functional status were excluded from the model
daccording to the new CASMIN educational classification [21]
eThe higher the MMSE score, the better the cognition [18]
Reasons for not having advance directives for health care (n = 192)
| Reason | Stated by n (%) of the 192 participants without ADsa |
|---|---|
| “I trust that my relatives will make the right decisions for me.” | 114 (59.4) |
| “I trust that my physicians will make the right decisions for me.” | 86 (44.8) |
| “I did not want to concern myself with the topic ADs.” | 54 (28.1) |
| “I did not have the right contact person or help to prepare an ADs.” | 45 (23.4) |
| “The topic ADs is too complicated for me.” | 37 (19.3) |
| “I have not had the time to deal with the topic ADs so far.” | 32 (16.7) |
| “I have too many concerns regarding the usefulness of an ADs.” | 32 (16.7) |
| “I was not aware of the possibility of preparing an ADs.” | 24 (12.5) |
| Other reasonsb | 60 (31.3) |
| No reasons stated | 4 (2.1) |
ADs advance directives
aMultiple answers were allowed
bcommon stated other reasons: preparation of ADs is planned/intended (n = 13; 6.8%); no motivation/laziness/carelessness/indifference (n = 19; 9.9%), ADs are not necessary (n = 12; 6.3%)
Overview of the groups of persons who assisted in the preparation of advance directives
| Groups of persons assisting in ADs preparation | Assisted in n (%) of the 384 participants with assistance in ADs preparationa |
|---|---|
| Children/grandchildren | 147 (38.3) |
| Notary | 93 (24.2) |
| General practitioner | 73 (19.0) |
| Spouse/life partner | 51 (13.3) |
| Other relatives | 40 (10.4) |
| Acquaintance/friend | 24 (6.3) |
| Staff of professional information centersb | 20 (5.2) |
| Lawyer | 6 (1.6) |
| Othersc | 6 (1.6) |
ADs advance directives
aMultiple answers were allowed
be.g., health insurances, social welfare organizations
ce.g., tax accountant, staff of nursing or retirement home, pastor
Multivariable logistic regression on the association between having a POA for health care and participants’ characteristicsa, b
| Characteristicc | df | Wald’s χ2 |
| OR | 95%-CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Living situation (reference: private household, alone) | |||||
| Private household, with others (partner, relative, etc.) | 1 | 1.844 | 0.175 | 1.30 | 0.89–1.89 |
| Assisted living/nursing home/retirement home | 1 | 7.959 | 0.005 | 2.15 | 1.26–3.66 |
| MMSE score; every additional pointd | 1 | 16.054 | <0.001 | 1.21 | 1.10–1.33 |
CI confidence interval, df degree of freedom, MMSE Mini-Mental-State Examination, OR odds ratio
amissing data for n = 22 (3.3%) of the 666 participants
bbackward elimination; Nagelkerke’s R2 of the model =0.051
cAge, gender, education, family status, subjectively perceived cognitive decline, self-rated health, depression, frailty, and basic and instrumental functional status were excluded from the model
dThe higher the MMSE score, the better the cognition [18]