Literature DB >> 8589316

Life-sustaining treatment preferences of hemodialysis patients: implications for advance directives.

P A Singer1, E C Thiel, C D Naylor, R M Richardson, H Llewellyn-Thomas, M Goldstein, C Saiphoo, P R Uldall, D Kim, D C Mendelssohn.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the life-sustaining treatment preferences of dialysis patients and to compare the acceptability of two generic and a disease-specific advance directive (AD). Of 532 potentially eligible hemodialysis patients, 95 (17.9%) participated in the study. These patients completed two generic (the Centre for Bioethics Living Will and the Medical Directive) and one disease-specific (the Dialysis Living Will) AD in a randomized cross-over trial. Treatment preferences were measured by using the Centre for Bioethics Living Will. Acceptability of the AD was measured by using a 13-item advance directive acceptability questionnaire (ADAQ) for each AD, and the advance directive choice questionnaire (ADCQ) to elicit participants' preferred AD. Twenty-five percent of the participants wanted to continue dialysis in case of severe stroke, 19% in severe dementia, and 14% in permanent coma. Averaged across treatments, proportions of participants wanting treatment in various health states were: current health (86%), mild stroke (84%), moderate stroke (60%), severe stroke (21%), mild dementia (78%), moderate dementia (51%), severe dementia (14%), terminal illness (41%), and permanent coma (10%). Averaged across health states, proportions of participants wanting various types of treatment were: dialysis (58%), antibiotics (53%), transfusion (53%), surgery (48%), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (48%), respirator (47%), and tube feeding (41%). Mean ADAQ scores were: Dialysis Living Will, 71%; Centre for Bioethics Living Will, 70%; and Medical Directive, 60% (F = 8.27, P < 0.001 (repeat measures analysis of variance); the Dialysis Living Will and Centre for Bioethics Living Will scored significantly higher than the Medical Directive). The proportion of participants who said they would choose to complete each AD was: Dialysis Living Will, 28%; Centre for Bioethics Living Will, 38%; Medical Directive, 31%; and unsure, 3% (chi 2 = 1.465, df = 2, P = 0.48). In conclusion, twenty-five percent or less of hemodialysis patients want to continue dialysis in three specific health states: severe stroke, severe dementia, and permanent coma. Health states and illness severity, far more than treatment descriptions, influence preferences. Dialysis patients should be offered a generic AD, and some generic AD are more acceptable than others. Only a minority of dialysis patients will complete any AD, but the completion of written AD forms is only one element in the process of advance care planning.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8589316     DOI: 10.1681/ASN.V651410

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol        ISSN: 1046-6673            Impact factor:   10.121


  10 in total

1.  A Randomized Trial of Expanding Choice Sets to Motivate Advance Directive Completion.

Authors:  Katherine R Courtright; Vanessa Madden; Nicole B Gabler; Elizabeth Cooney; Jennifer Kim; Nicole Herbst; Lauren Burgoon; Jennifer Whealdon; Laura M Dember; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Prevalence and Contents of Advance Directives of Patients with ESRD Receiving Dialysis.

Authors:  Molly A Feely; Daniel Hildebrandt; Jithinraj Edakkanambeth Varayil; Paul S Mueller
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 8.237

3.  Preferences for dialysis withdrawal and engagement in advance care planning within a diverse sample of dialysis patients.

Authors:  Manjula Kurella Tamura; Mary K Goldstein; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2009-09-03       Impact factor: 5.992

4.  The HIV-specific advance directive.

Authors:  P A Singer; E C Thiel; I Salit; W Flanagan; C D Naylor
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 5.  Advance care planning in elderly chronic dialysis patients.

Authors:  Jean L Holley
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  A communication framework for dialysis decision-making for frail elderly patients.

Authors:  Jane O Schell; Robert A Cohen
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 8.237

7.  Is maximum conservative management an equivalent treatment option to dialysis for elderly patients with significant comorbid disease?

Authors:  Rachel C Carson; Maciej Juszczak; Andrew Davenport; Aine Burns
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 8.237

8.  Clinical Impact of Education Provision on Determining Advance Care Planning Decisions among End Stage Renal Disease Patients Receiving Regular Hemodialysis in University Malaya Medical Centre.

Authors:  Albert Hing Wong; Loh Ee Chin; Tan Li Ping; Ng Kok Peng; Lim Soo Kun
Journal:  Indian J Palliat Care       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec

9.  Communication Tools for End-of-Life Decision-Making in Ambulatory Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Simon J Oczkowski; Han-Oh Chung; Louise Hanvey; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; John J You
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Knowledge, attitudes, and influencing factors of cancer patients toward approving advance directives in China.

Authors:  Ru-Jun Zheng; Yan Fu; Qiu-Fen Xiang; Mei Yang; Lin Chen; Ying-Kang Shi; Chun-Hua Yu; Jun-Ying Li
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 3.603

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.