0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Articles |

Validation of Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatment: Implications for Advance Care Planning

Donald L. Patrick, PhD, MSPH; Robert A. Pearlman, MD, MPH; Helene E. Starks, MPH; Kevin C. Cain, PhD; William G. Cole, PhD; and Richard F. Uhlmann, MD, MPH
[+] Article and Author Information

From the University of Washington and Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Jeremy Sugarman, Bruce Psaty, and J. Randall Curtis for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Grant Support: In part by grant HS06343 from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health and Human Services. Requests for Reprints: Donald L. Patrick. PhD, MSPH, Department of Health Services, Box 357660, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7660. Current Author Addresses: Dr. Patrick: Department of Health Services, Box 357660, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7660.


Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(7):509-517. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-7-199710010-00002
Text Size: A A A

Background: Treatment preferences established before life-threatening illness occurs may differ from actual decisions because of changes in preferences or poor understanding of the link between prospective preferences and outcomes.

Objective: To evaluate the validity of prospective treatment preferences by examining their concordance with ratings of health states.

Design: Survey of seven cohorts of persons with diverse health status. Home- and hospital-based interviews were conducted at baseline and at 6, 18, and 30 months.

Setting: The greater Seattle area.

Participants: Younger and older well adults; persons with chronic conditions, terminal cancer, or AIDS; stroke survivors; and nursing home residents.

Measurements: Concordance between six treatment preferences and five health state ratings (on a seven-point scale) was assessed by using logistic regression to measure the increase in odds of treatment refusal for each one-point change in health state ratings. Preferences were considered concordant if treatments were refused in health states rated as worse than death and were accepted in health states rated as better than death. Reasons for discordance were elicited at the final interview.

Results: The probability of refusal of prospective treatment was strongly related to health state ratings. Odds ratios ranged from 1.7 to 1.9 (P < 0.001) for every treatment. When patients were shown their discordant preferences, they had a coherent explanation or changed their health state rating or treatment preference to make the two concordant.

Conclusions: Prospective life-sustaining treatment preferences show high convergent validity. For most persons, treatment preferences are grounded in a consistent belief system. Concordance and discordance between treatment preferences and health state ratings offer clinicians the opportunity to explore patients' values and reasoning.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1.
Model for exploring the validity of treatment preferences.

Preferences are concordant when patients refuse treatments in health states considered worse than death and accept treatment in health states considered better than death (A and D). Discordant preferences (B and C) should be discussed to clarify misunderstanding or explore patient values.

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2.
Sample of the visual aid used to elicit treatment preferences.
Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3.
Relation between treatment preference and rating of health state.P

For each treatment, ratings for all five health states were combined. White indicates participants who accepted treatment; diagonal shading indicates participants who were unsure whether to accept or reject treatment; and black indicates participants who rejected treatment. Each treatment preference was associated with the strength of the health state rating ( < 0.001).

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)