Literature DB >> 30789785

Explaining the Process of Determining Futility Increases Lay Public Acceptance.

Kunal Bailoor1, Thomas S Valley2,3, Stephanie Kukora3,4, Darin B Zahuranec3,5.   

Abstract

Rationale: National guidelines have laid out a process to conflict resolution in cases of potentially inappropriate medical interventions.
Objectives: To determine the association between information about a process-based approach and lay public perceptions of the appropriateness of withholding medically inappropriate interventions.
Methods: Respondents from a nationwide sample completed a survey with two adult intensive care unit-based vignettes: one about advanced cancer where doctors told the family that additional chemotherapy would not be offered, and a second case of multiorgan failure after brain hemorrhage where dialysis would not be offered. Participants were randomly assigned to see or not see information about a detailed process for the determination to withhold (second opinion, ethics consultation, exploring transfer to another institution). The primary outcome was the perceived appropriateness of not providing the treatment (four-point scale, dichotomized for analysis, modified Poisson regression), and the secondary outcome was the negative emotional reaction to the case (positive and negative affect schedule, range 1-5, higher is greater negative emotional response, linear regression).
Results: A total of 1,191 respondents were included. Providing detailed process information increased the perceived appropriateness of withholding treatment by approximately 10 percentage points in each vignette: (chemotherapy, 75.7-85.4%; dialysis, 68.0-79.3%). Process information remained associated with perceived appropriateness of withholding treatment after adjustment for order effects and prespecified respondent characteristics (chemotherapy: prevalence ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.19) (dialysis: prevalence ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25). Process information was not associated with emotional response to the cases (chemotherapy: β = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.09) (dialysis: β = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.10; both adjusted for order effects). Conclusions: Providing process-based conflict resolution information increased public acceptance of determinations of medical futility, supporting the practice outlined in national consensus statements.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ethics committees; medical futility; withholding treatment

Year:  2019        PMID: 30789785      PMCID: PMC6543468          DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201811-790OC

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc        ISSN: 2325-6621


  19 in total

1.  Medically Inappropriate or Futile Treatment: Deliberation and Justification.

Authors:  Cheryl J Misak; Douglas B White; Robert D Truog
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  2015-12-17

2.  An Official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units.

Authors:  Gabriel T Bosslet; Thaddeus M Pope; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Bernard Lo; Robert D Truog; Cynda H Rushton; J Randall Curtis; Dee W Ford; Molly Osborne; Cheryl Misak; David H Au; Elie Azoulay; Baruch Brody; Brenda G Fahy; Jesse B Hall; Jozef Kesecioglu; Alexander A Kon; Kathleen O Lindell; Douglas B White
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 21.405

3.  Regional and institutional variation in the initiation of early do-not-resuscitate orders.

Authors:  David S Zingmond; Neil S Wenger
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005 Aug 8-22

4.  Cancer patient preferences for quality and length of life.

Authors:  Neal J Meropol; Brian L Egleston; Joanne S Buzaglo; Al B Benson; Donald J Cegala; Michael A Diefenbach; Linda Fleisher; Suzanne M Miller; Daniel P Sulmasy; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  The Abuse of Futility.

Authors:  Lawrence J Schneiderman; Nancy S Jecker; Albert R Jonsen
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 1.416

Review 6.  Beyond the futility argument: the fair process approach and time-limited trials for managing dialysis conflict.

Authors:  Ann Rinehart
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 8.237

7.  Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population.

Authors:  Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-12       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Surrogate expectations in severe brain injury.

Authors:  Alexandra Suppes; Joseph J Fins
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Development of abbreviated measures to assess patient trust in a physician, a health insurer, and the medical profession.

Authors:  Elizabeth Dugan; Felicia Trachtenberg; Mark A Hall
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-10-03       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making.

Authors:  Jos Vm Welie; Henk Amj Ten Have
Journal:  Multidiscip Respir Med       Date:  2014-03-11
View more
  2 in total

1.  The Community Perspective on Potentially Inappropriate Treatment.

Authors:  Thanh H Neville; Derjung M Tarn; Carol L Pavlish; Neil S Wenger
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2020-07

2.  Placing Value on End-of-Life Care-Is It Time for a New Taxonomy?

Authors:  May Hua; Hannah Wunsch
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-11-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.