OBJECTIVE: To determine patient characteristics associated with the desire for life-sustaining treatments in the event of terminal illness. DESIGN: In-person survey from October 1986 to June 1988. SETTING: 13 internal medicine and family practices in North Carolina. PATIENTS: 2,536 patients (46% of those eligible) aged 65 years and older who were continuing care patients of participating practices, enrolled in Medicare. The patients were slightly older than the 65+ general population, 61% female, and 69% white, and most had one or more chronic illnesses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors asked the patients whether they would want each of six different treatments (hospitalization, intensive care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, surgery, artificial ventilation, or tube feeding) if they were to have a terminal illness. The authors combined responses into three categories ranging from the desire for more treatment to the desire for less treatment. After adjustment for other factors, 53% of women chose less treatment compared with 43% of men; 35% of blacks vs 15% of whites and 23% of the less well educated vs 15% of the better educated expressed the desire for more treatment. High depression scores also were associated with the desire for more treatment (26% for depressed vs 18% for others). CONCLUSION: Patients' choices for care in the event of terminal illness relate to an intricate set of demographic, educational, and cultural factors. These results should not be used as a shortcut to determine patient preferences for care, but may provide new insights into the basis for patients' preferences. In discussing choices for future life-sustaining care, physicians need to explore with each individual the basis for his or her choices.
OBJECTIVE: To determine patient characteristics associated with the desire for life-sustaining treatments in the event of terminal illness. DESIGN: In-person survey from October 1986 to June 1988. SETTING: 13 internal medicine and family practices in North Carolina. PATIENTS: 2,536 patients (46% of those eligible) aged 65 years and older who were continuing care patients of participating practices, enrolled in Medicare. The patients were slightly older than the 65+ general population, 61% female, and 69% white, and most had one or more chronic illnesses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors asked the patients whether they would want each of six different treatments (hospitalization, intensive care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, surgery, artificial ventilation, or tube feeding) if they were to have a terminal illness. The authors combined responses into three categories ranging from the desire for more treatment to the desire for less treatment. After adjustment for other factors, 53% of women chose less treatment compared with 43% of men; 35% of blacks vs 15% of whites and 23% of the less well educated vs 15% of the better educated expressed the desire for more treatment. High depression scores also were associated with the desire for more treatment (26% for depressed vs 18% for others). CONCLUSION:Patients' choices for care in the event of terminal illness relate to an intricate set of demographic, educational, and cultural factors. These results should not be used as a shortcut to determine patient preferences for care, but may provide new insights into the basis for patients' preferences. In discussing choices for future life-sustaining care, physicians need to explore with each individual the basis for his or her choices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship
Authors: S A James; E H Wagner; D S Strogatz; S A Beresford; D G Kleinbaum; C A Williams; L M Cutchin; M A Ibrahim Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1984-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: N I Martinez-Schlurmann; S Rampa; D G Speicher; V Allareddy; A T Rotta; V Allareddy Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Amber E Barnato; Zekarias Berhane; Lisa A Weissfeld; Chung-Chou H Chang; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Derek C Angus Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Amber E Barnato; Denise L Anthony; Jonathan Skinner; Patricia M Gallagher; Elliott S Fisher Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Laura L Phillips; Rebecca S Allen; Grant M Harris; Andrew H Presnell; Jamie Decoster; Ronald Cavanaugh Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2011-05-18
Authors: Kathryn L Moseley; Annamaria Church; Bridget Hempel; Harry Yuan; Susan Door Goold; Gary L Freed Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 1.798