Literature DB >> 28905358

Prognosis Communication in Late-Life Disability: A Mixed Methods Study.

Theresa W Wong1, Sean Lang-Brown2,3, Rafael D Romo3,4, Alvin Au-Yeung5, Sei J Lee2,3, Patricia J Moran6, Jason Karlawish7, Rebecca Sudore2,3, Josephine Clayton8,9, Alexander K Smith2,3.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Long-term prognosis informs clinical and personal decisions for older adults with late-life disability. However, many clinicians worry that telling patients their prognosis may cause harm.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the safety of and reactions to prognosis communication in late-life disability.
DESIGN: Participants estimated their own life expectancy and were then presented their calculated life expectancy using a validated prognostic index. We used a semi-structured interview guide to ask for their reactions. Qualitative data were analyzed using constant comparative analysis. Potential psychological and behavioral outcomes in response to receiving one's calculated prognosis were recorded and re-assessed 2-4 weeks later.
SETTING: Community-dwelling older adults age 70+ residing in the San Francisco Bay Area. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty five older adults with a median age of 80 requiring assistance with ≥1 Activity of Daily Living.
RESULTS: Self-estimates of life expectancy were similar to calculated results for 16 participants. 15 estimated their life expectancy to be longer than their calculated life expectancy by >2 years, while 4 shorter by >2 years. An overarching theme of, "fitting life expectancy into one's narrative" emerged from qualitative analysis. Discussing life expectancy led participants to express how they could alter their life expectancy (subtheme "locus of control"), how they saw their present health (subtheme "perceived health"), and their hopes and fears for the remaining years of their lives (subtheme "outlook on remaining years"). Feelings of anxiety and sadness in reaction to receiving calculated prognosis were rare. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: About half of the disabled older adults' self-estimates of prognosis were similar to calculated estimates. Evidence of sadness or anxiety was rare. These data suggest that in most cases, clinicians may offer to discuss prognosis.
© 2017, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2017, The American Geriatrics Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communication; late-life disability; life expectancy; prognosis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28905358      PMCID: PMC5681411          DOI: 10.1111/jgs.15025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc        ISSN: 0002-8614            Impact factor:   5.562


  18 in total

1.  Measurement and utilization of healthy life expectancy: conceptual issues.

Authors:  J M Robine; J P Michel; L G Branch
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 9.408

Review 2.  A continuity theory of normal aging.

Authors:  R C Atchley
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  1989-04

3.  "Knowing is better": preferences of diverse older adults for discussing prognosis.

Authors:  Cyrus Ahalt; Louise C Walter; Lindsey Yourman; Catherine Eng; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Alexander K Smith
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate?

Authors:  N K Arora; C A McHorney
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  The views of patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on advance care planning: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Anna MacPherson; Catherine Walshe; Valerie O'Donnell; Aashish Vyas
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 4.762

6.  Every patient is an individual: clinicians balance individual factors when discussing prognosis with diverse frail elderly adults.

Authors:  Julie N Thai; Louise C Walter; Catherine Eng; Alexander K Smith
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  Attitude and self-reported practice regarding prognostication in a national sample of internists.

Authors:  N A Christakis; T J Iwashyna
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1998-11-23

8.  Primary Care Practitioners' Views on Incorporating Long-term Prognosis in the Care of Older Adults.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Theron L Bowman; Danelle Cayea; Craig Evan Pollack; Scott Feeser; Cynthia Boyd
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  Individualizing life expectancy estimates for older adults using the Gompertz Law of Human Mortality.

Authors:  Sei J Lee; W John Boscardin; Katharine A Kirby; Kenneth E Covinsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Older adults' beliefs about physician-estimated life expectancy: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Christine E Kistler; Carmen L Lewis; Halle R Amick; Debra L Bynum; Louise C Walter; Lea C Watson
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2006-02-11       Impact factor: 2.497

View more
  3 in total

1.  A Strategy to Prepare Primary Care Clinicians for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening With Adults Older Than 75 Years.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Alicia R Jacobson; Gianna M Aliberti; Adlin Pinheiro; Alexander K Smith; Roger B Davis; Linnaea C Schuttner; Mary Beth Hamel
Journal:  Innov Aging       Date:  2020-07-07

2.  "Planting the Seed": Perceived Benefits of and Strategies for Discussing Long-Term Prognosis with Older Adults.

Authors:  Jayaji M Moré; Sean Lang-Brown; Rafael D Romo; Sei J Lee; Rebecca Sudore; Alexander K Smith
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 5.562

3.  Effectiveness of a complex regional advance care planning intervention to improve care consistency with care preferences: study protocol for a multi-center, cluster-randomized controlled trial focusing on nursing home residents (BEVOR trial).

Authors:  Georg Marckmann; Jürgen In der Schmitten; Kornelia Götze; Claudia Bausewein; Berend Feddersen; Angela Fuchs; Amra Hot; Eva Hummers; Andrea Icks; Änne Kirchner; Evelyn Kleinert; Stephanie Klosterhalfen; Henrike Kolbe; Sonja Laag; Henriette Langner; Susanne Lezius; Gabriele Meyer; Joseph Montalbo; Friedemann Nauck; Christine Reisinger; Nicola Rieder; Jan Schildmann; Michaela Schunk; Henrikje Stanze; Christiane Vogel; Karl Wegscheider; Antonia Zapf
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 2.728

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.