0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Stability of Preferences for End-of-Life Treatment After 3 Years of Follow-up:  The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study FREE

Marsha N. Wittink, MD, MBE; Knashawn H. Morales, ScD; Lucy A. Meoni, ScM; Daniel E. Ford, MD, MPH; Nae-yuh Wang, PhD; Michael J. Klag, MD, MPH; Joseph J. Gallo, MD, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Family Medicine and Community Health (Drs Wittink and Gallo) and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Dr Morales), University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia; and Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, and Departments of Epidemiology and Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (Ms Meoni and Drs Ford, Wang, and Klag).


Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2125-2130. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.19.2125.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Preferences for life-sustaining treatment elicited in one state of health may not reflect preferences in another state of health.

Methods  We estimated the stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment across 3 years and whether declines in physical functioning and mental health were associated with changes in preferences for end-of-life treatment.In this longitudinal cohort study of medical students in the graduating classes of 1948 to 1964 at Johns Hopkins University, 818 physicians completed the life-sustaining treatment questionnaire in 1999 and 2002 (mean age at baseline, 69 years).

Results  Although the prevalence of the 3 clusters of life-sustaining treatment preferences remained stable across the 3-year follow-up, certain physicians changed their preferences with time. The probability that physicians were in the same cluster at follow-up as at baseline was 0.41 for “most aggressive,” 0.50 for “intermediate care,” and 0.80 for “least aggressive.” Physicians without advance directives were more likely to transition to the most aggressive cluster than to the least aggressive cluster during the 3-year follow-up (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.45). Age at baseline and decline in physical and mental health were not associated with transitions between 1999 and 2002.

Conclusion  Periodic reassessment of preferences is most critical for patients who desire aggressive end-of-life care or who do not have advance directives.

Figures in this Article

Crossing the Quality Chasm1 called for a vision of the health system that is more responsive to the wishes and preferences of patients. Nowhere is the quality of care more dependent on eliciting patient and family wishes and values than in the arena of end-of-life care. Quality end-of-life care, as outlined by Singer and colleagues,2 depends on eliciting the preferences of patients and families regarding the following goals: receiving adequate pain and symptom management, avoiding inappropriate prolongation of dying, achieving a sense of control, relieving the burden on loved ones, and strengthening relationships with loved ones. Nevertheless, various studies revealed that 4 in 10 dying patients had severe pain most of the time,3 almost half of incurably ill patients with advanced dementia and metastatic cancer received nonpalliative treatment,4 and bereaved family members believed that communication concerning end-of-life care issues was poor.5 Efforts to improve the experience of patients and families at the end of life must incorporate patient perspectives. Advance directives are 1 strategy through which patient preferences can be elicited and recorded, to be invoked at a time when the patient may not be able to make decisions directing care. Since advent of the Patient Self-Determination Act, hospitals, nursing homes, and health care programs have been required to ask patients about advance directives and to incorporate the information into medical records. Physicians are being encouraged to work with patients and families to complete advance directives in the outpatient setting. Despite the emphasis on eliciting and documenting preferences for good quality end-of-life care, to our knowledge, factors related to clinical aspects of eliciting end-of-life preferences, such as stability of choices, have not been extensively studied in community-dwelling older adults.

We estimated the stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment during 3 years and whether declines in physical functioning and mental health were associated with changes in preferences for end-of-life treatment in participants in one of the oldest aging studies in the world, The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Given the age and functional status of the physician respondents, end-of-life considerations are a reality, not just hypothetical based on previous work6,7; we hypothesize that transitions to more aggressive categories of treatment preference might be more likely in respondents without advance directives or with declining self-rated physical function and mental health.

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRECURSORS STUDY

The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study was designed in 1946 by Caroline Bedell Thomas to identify characteristics associated with premature cardiovascular disease and death.811 All 1337 students who matriculated into the graduating classes of 1948 to 1964 at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine were eligible. Precursors Study procedures have been reviewed and approved by The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine institutional review board.

ASSESSMENT OF PREFERENCES FOR POTENTIALLY LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT

The 1999 and 2002 questionnaires included items about whether the participating physician had or was considering obtaining a living will or durable power of attorney for health care. Participants were also asked to consider what types of treatment they would want if they experienced irreversible brain damage that left them unable to speak understandably or to recognize people.6,7 In the scenario, based on the medical directive developed by Emanuel and Emanuel,12 the participants were told that they had no terminal illness and might remain in this brain-injured state for a long time. We selected the scenario of irreversible brain damage without terminal illness because in previous research12,13 this scenario provided a greater degree of variability of responses than did other vignettes in the medical directive. The participants were asked to state their wishes regarding the use of 10 medical interventions: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, intravenous fluids, surgically placed feeding tube for nutrition, dialysis, chemotherapy, major surgery, invasive diagnostic tests, blood or blood products, and antibiotics.6 The responses for each intervention were coded a priori into a dichotomous variable as either reject (“No, I would not want”) or accept (yes, undecided, or trial of treatment). This dichotomization has been used by other investigators and reflects common clinical practice in which “treatment trial” and “unsure” would translate into providing life-sustaining treatment to incompetent patients, at least initially.7,13,14

ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING AND MENTAL HEALTH

The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was administered to the Precursors Study cohort as part of the annual questionnaires in 1999 and 2002 and was scored using standard techniques.15 The SF-36 has been used in studies of patient care outcomes1620 and is reliable and valid in older adults.2123 The mental health subscale, known as the 5-item version of the Mental Health Inventory, has been found to be an accurate screening instrument for the detection of major depression and other affective disorders.24 Because there are no standardized thresholds for dichotomized change scores on the SF-36 subscales, thresholds for significant changes in physical functioning and depression were established a priori based on clinically significant thresholds reported in a psychometric analysis of the SF-36.25 The physical functioning change score was dichotomized at 20 (ie, a decline of ≥20 points on the physical functioning subscale between the 1992 and 1998 questionnaires represented a clinically meaningful decline in physical functioning) and the depression change score at 5.

ANALYTIC STRATEGY

To study potentially life-sustaining treatments as a pattern or set of treatments (“latent classes”) in contrast to a focus on individual interventions, we applied the latent transition model.2628 This model provides for simultaneous estimation of (1) clusters of end-of-life treatment preferences, (2) transition probabilities from one cluster of preferences to another, and (3) predictors of transitions from one cluster to another. We discuss the details of the latent transition model in the eBox.

Data analysis was performed using Mplus version 4.1 and WinLTA version 3.1, which both use an efficient estimation-maximization algorithm for maximum likelihood estimation.29 Model choice, in terms of the number of latent classes, was determined through examination of fit indices and in relation to clinically interpretable results. Bayesian information criteria (BIC)30 were used to compare nonnested models that differed in the number of latent classes. A smaller value of BIC indicates a better model fit. A goodness-of-fit statistic, G2, was used to assess the model goodness of fit for nested models with the same number of latent classes but that differed in the number of factors estimated.31 The 3-class model yielded the best fit at both time points over 2- and 4-class models using statistical criteria (BIC3 = 9262.64, BIC4 = 9477.47, and BIC2 = 10 046.22).

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

The effective sample size for this analysis was 818 physicians. Of the 1016 participants to whom questionnaires were sent in 1999, 773 responded with their preferences for the brain injury scenario (76.1% participation). In 2002, 970 participants were sent questionnaires, and 721 were returned with information about end-of-life preferences (74.3% participation). Persons who had preference data at only 1 time point contributed to estimates of preference class and not to transition probability. The mean (SD) age of the study sample at baseline was 69.0 (5.4) years. Reflecting medical school enrollment between 1948 and 1964, the study sample was 92.0% white men. The mean (SD) physical functioning score as assessed using the SF-36 was 86.1 (20.3) in 1999 and 83.5 (20.9) in 2002. The mean (SD) mental functioning score as assessed using the SF-36 was 85.0 (11.8) in 1999 and 86.2 (10.4) in 2002.

CHANGE IN SPECIFIC INTERVENTION PREFERENCES BETWEEN 1999 AND 2002

Table 1 provides preferences for life-sustaining treatments in response to the hypothetical scenario in 2002 by preferences assessed in 1999. In general, procedures that were declined in 1999 were likely also to be declined in 2002. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of persons who desired an intervention in 1999 declined the treatment in 2002.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Preferences for Specific Potentially Life-Sustaining Treatments (in Response to the Hypothetical Brain Death Scenario) in 1999 vs 2002a
TREATMENT PREFERENCE CATEGORIES IN 1999 AND 2002

Preferences derived from the latent transition model grouped together the same way in 1999 and in 2002: (1) a cluster representing desiring most interventions (“most aggressive” category), (2) a cluster declining most interventions (“least aggressive” category), and (3) an intermediate cluster (labeled “intermediate care”) in which the primary interventions desired were only intravenous fluids and antibiotics. The Figure shows the probability of desiring specific interventions given treatment preferences in 1999 and in 2002. The vertical axis in the Figure shows the probability of desiring specific interventions among persons in a given category of treatment preferences (most aggressive, least aggressive, and intermediate care categories).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Probability of desiring specific interventions given category of desire for aggressiveness of care in 1999 and in 2002. Data are from The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study (1999-2002).

Graphic Jump Location
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN 1999 AND 2002

Although preferences for end-of-life care clustered together in the same way in 1999 and in 2002 (Figure), respondents moved from one cluster to another during the 3-year follow-up (Table 2). For example, among persons in the most aggressive category of preferences, the probability of remaining in the most aggressive category 3 years later was 0.41 (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Probability of Being in a Specific Potentially Life-Sustaining Treatment Preference Category in 2002 Given Treatment Preferences in 1999a
COVARIATES AND TRANSITIONS BETWEEN 1999 AND 2002

The association of covariates with change in preference between 1999 and 2002, as measured using the odds ratio, is given in Table 3. Age and decline in mental or physical health (measured using the SF-36) were not statistically significantly associated with transitions to the most aggressive category compared with transitions to the least aggressive category (the associated confidence intervals included the null). However, physicians who reported having no living will or durable power of attorney were twice as likely to make a transition to the most aggressive category as to the least aggressive category of potentially life-sustaining treatments (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.45). Table 3 shows that there were no statistically significant associations of specific covariates with transition to the intermediate care category compared with transition to the least aggressive category.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Association of Covariates With Transitions to the Most Aggressive Category vs the Least Aggressive Category and Transitions to Intermediate Care vs the Least Aggressive Categorya

The latent transition analysis allowed us to classify preferences for end-of-life treatment into 3 clinically relevant clusters based on responses of physicians to a standard assessment instrument asking about 10 potentially life-sustaining interventions. Although the preferences as tapped by the instrument seemed to cluster the same way in 1999 and in 2002 (most aggressive, least aggressive, and intermediate care), the likelihood that physicians changed their preferences for end-of-life care was related to their cluster at baseline. Most physicians in this sample fit into the least aggressive treatment preference category, and the physicians who chose least aggressive treatments at baseline were the least likely to change preferences with time (80% of persons in the least aggressive category at baseline were in the same category at follow-up). Physicians in the most aggressive category of preferences at baseline were the most likely to change preferences across time (41% of the persons in the most aggressive category at baseline were in the same category at follow-up). In addition, we found that physicians without advance directives were twice as likely as those with advance directives to transition to the most aggressive category compared with a transition to the least aggressive category during the 3-year follow-up. Age and decline in physical or mental health as measured using a standard instrument were not associated with transitions in preference categories.

Before discussing the implications of these findings, it is important to consider the potential limitations of this study. First, the study sample was a cohort of older physicians who graduated from a single medical school and have participated in a longitudinal study. The generalizability of the results may be limited to physicians. However, because older physicians are highly likely to have had professional experience with the life-sustaining treatments and the complications of severe irreversible brain damage as presented in the questionnaire, these results are unlikely to be affected by participant misunderstanding of the conditions and interventions asked about in the questionnaire. Also, we would argue that because the respondents are physicians, and previous studies suggest that experience with specific treatments may be associated with stability in preferences for health care,32 the estimates of change are likely to be conservative. In other words, we would expect this sample to provide an estimate of changeability that would be more stable than that of samples of persons with less medical education or experience. However, we acknowledge the possibility that physicians may have been influenced by answering the study questions or may have seen patient cases that changed their minds about their preferences. Second, the measures of physical and mental health were based on subjective assessment by the respondents and not on objective evaluation. Yet, the participants were physicians, who have been shown to provide accurate reports of their health.8 Third, we classified the respondents using a statistical model to characterize preferences. We believe that this categorization was more clinically relevant than methods that either evaluated the difference in the number of interventions accepted3336 or assessed only acceptance or rejection of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.3740 Fourth, we dichotomized the responses to the scenario so that those who were “unsure” or wanted “a treatment trial” were counted as desiring that treatment. Although this reflects common clinical practice in which “treatment trial” and “unsure” would translate into providing life-sustaining treatment to incompetent patients, we realize that this limits our ability to study transitions involving those responses. Fifth, by eliciting treatment preferences using a hypothetical illness scenario, the preferences we elicited might not accurately predict treatment decisions during actual illness. On the other hand, because hypothetical scenarios are frequently used in advance directive documents, our method reflects common medical practice regarding planning for end-of-life care. Finally, although these findings suggest that physicians without advance directives had less stable preferences across time than those with advance directives, we cannot rule out the possibility that persons who choose to have advance directives strongly desire less treatment at the end of life.

Prospective studies that have examined factors associated with change in preferences for end-of-life care have been limited to persons with severe physical illness,41,42 residents of nursing homes,43 and the recently hospitalized44 or have assessed preferences for single interventions only, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation.44,45 Among severely ill patients (advanced cancer, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), results have been mixed.41,42 Persons with decline in physical functioning were more likely to accept treatment even if the outcome was predicted to be a diminished state of health.42 Subsequent study of the same cohort incorporated the trade-off of burden of treatment with potential outcomes of treatment.41 The proportions of persons who would undergo therapy with a given likelihood of death or disability were similar during follow-up, but individuals were less likely to want burdensome treatment across time. Greater functional disability and poor quality of life were associated with decreased willingness to undergo treatment.41,42 McParland and coworkers43 studied the preferences of nursing home residents for life-sustaining treatment for 2 years, finding no association between change in preferences and physical functioning. Carmel and Mutran45 interviewed (3 times in 2 years) a sample of 1138 persons 70 years and older living in the community in Israel. At each interval, approximately 70% of the sample did not change their preferences for aggressiveness of care, and the remainder was split between wanting more care and wanting less. Of persons who declined life-sustaining treatment at baseline, 87% continued to decline treatment 2 years later.45 Recognizing that negative findings are difficult to generalize, we did not find an association between change in mental or physical health (measured using the SF-36) and change in preferences for potentially life-sustaining treatment. Perhaps because physicians understand the course of disease and the nature of potentially life-sustaining treatments better, in this cohort, factors other than age, physical functioning, and mental health seem to play a role in transitions between categories of potentially life-sustaining treatments.

The treatment options offered at the end of life fell into preference categories that were clinically meaningful. The latent transition analysis sharpens the focus on the role of advanced directives aside from its association with preference category. Given that physicians without advance directives were more likely to change to the more aggressive category than to the least aggressive category with time, the process of documenting specific wishes may make decision making more deliberate, leading to more stability of preferences. Among physicians, advance directives seem to be used to signify what one does not want rather than what one does want at the end of life. Older adults focus on preferences for perceived outcomes of serious illness rather than in terms of preferences for specific treatment options.46 Refocusing advance directives on delineation of acceptable health states (ie, the outcomes of treatment) instead of preferences for specific medical interventions might better capture end-of-life care goals.46

We believe that the results of this study suggest that although physician-respondents were relatively stable in their preferences, persons without advance directives and who desired the most aggressive treatment at baseline exhibited the most changeable preferences. We did not find evidence that changing mental or physical health was strongly associated with preferences for care. Persons who express a desire for aggressive treatment and those who have not communicated their wishes with a more formal written document (advance directives) may require frequent clinical reevaluation to assess whether wishes have changed. We are conducting open-ended interviews of respondents to understand the rationale for preferences for end-of-life care, to evaluate how and why preferences might change, and to determine whether the focus on potentially life-sustaining treatment in advance directives might be redirected to more salient domains, such as values or outcomes.

Correspondence: Marsha N. Wittink, MD, MBE, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3400 Spruce St, 2 Gates Bldg, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (wittinkm@uphs.upenn.edu).

Accepted for Publication: April 29, 2008.

Author Contributions: Dr Wittink had full access to the data and takes full responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Wittink, Meoni, Ford, Wang, Klag, and Gallo. Acquisition of data: Meoni, Klag, and Gallo. Analysis and interpretation of data: Wittink, Morales, Wang, Klag, and Gallo. Drafting of the manuscript: Wittink, Morales, Ford, and Gallo. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wittink, Meoni, Ford, Wang, Klag, and Gallo. Statistical analysis: Morales, Meoni, Wang, and Gallo. Obtained funding: Ford, Klag, and Gallo. Administrative, technical, and material support: Meoni and Klag. Study supervision: Wittink, Klag, and Gallo.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: Dr Wittink was supported by Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award MH073658 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study was supported by grants AG01760, DK02856, and DK07732 from the National Institutes of Health.

Role of the Sponsors: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript.

Institute of Medicine, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.  Washington, DC National Academies Press2001;
Singer  PAMartin  DKKelner  M Quality end-of-life care: patients' perspectives. JAMA 1999;281 (2) 163- 168
PubMed
Lynn  JTeno  JM Perceptions by family members of the dying experience of older and seriously ill patients. Ann Intern Med 1997;126 (2) 97- 106
PubMed
Ahronheim  JCMorrison  RSBaskin  SAMorris  JMeier  DE Treatment of the dying in the acute care hospital: advanced dementia and metastatic cancer. Arch Intern Med 1996;156 (18) 2094- 2100
PubMed
Hanson  LCDanis  MGarrett  J What is wrong with end-of-life care? opinions of bereaved family members. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997;45 (11) 1339- 1344
PubMed
Gallo  JJStraton  JKlag  M  et al.  Life-sustaining treatments: what do physicians want and do they express their wishes to others? J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51 (7) 961- 969
PubMed
Straton  JBWang  NYMeoni  L  et al.  Physical functioning, depression, and preferences for treatment at the end of life: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52 (4) 577- 582
PubMed
Klag  MJHe  JMead  LAFord  DEPearson  TALevine  DM Validity of physicians' self-reports of cardiovascular disease risk factors. Ann Epidemiol 1993;3 (4) 442- 447
PubMed
Thomas  CB Observations on some possible precursors of essential hypertension and coronary artery disease. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 1951;89 (6) 419- 441
PubMed
Klag  MJWang  NMeoni  L  et al.  Coffee intake and risk of hypertension: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Arch Intern Med 2002;162 (6) 657- 662
PubMed
Klag  MJFord  DMead  L  et al.  Serum cholesterol in young men and subsequent cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 1993;328 (5) 313- 318
PubMed
Emanuel  LLEmanuel  E The medical directive: a new comprehensive advance care document. JAMA 1989;261 (22) 3288- 3293
PubMed
Fischer  GSAlpert  HStoeckle  JEmanuel  L Can goals of care be used to predict intervention preferences in an advance directive? Arch Intern Med 1997;157 (7) 801- 807
PubMed
Emanuel  LLEmanuel  EJStoeckle  JDHummel  LRBarry  MJ Advance directives: stability of patients' treatment choices. Arch Intern Med 1994;154 (2) 209- 217
PubMed
Ware  JE How to Score the Revised MOS Short-Form Health Survey Scale (SF-36).  Boston, MA Health Institute, New England Medical Center Hospitals1988;
Stewart  ALedWare  JEed Measuring Functioning and Well-being.  Durham, NC Duke University Press1993;
McHorney  CA Measuring and monitoring general health status in elderly persons: practical and methodological issues in using the SF-36 health survey. Gerontologist 1996;36 (5) 571- 583
PubMed
Stewart  ALHays  RDWare  JE The MOS short-form general health survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988;26 (7) 724- 735
PubMed
Stewart  ALGreenfield  SHays  RD  et al.  Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989;262 (7) 907- 913
PubMed
Wells  KBStewart  AHays  RD  et al.  The functioning and well-being of depressed patients: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989;262 (7) 914- 919
PubMed
Stadnyk  KCalder  JRockwood  K Testing the measurement properties of the Short Form-36 Health Survey in a frail elderly population. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51 (10) 827- 835
PubMed
Lyons  RAPerry  ILittlepage  B Evidence for the validity of the Short-form 36 Questionnaire (SF-36) in an elderly population. Age Ageing 1994;23 (3) 182- 184
PubMed
Singleton  NTurner  A Measuring patients' views of their health: SF 36 is suitable for elderly patients. BMJ 1993;307 (6896) 126- 127
PubMed
Berwick  DMMurphy  JMGoldman  PAWare  JEBarsky  AJWeinstein  MC Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care 1991;29 (2) 169- 176
PubMed
McHorney  CAWare  JRaczek  A The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), II: psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31 (3) 247- 263
PubMed
Vermunt  JKMagidson  J Latent class analysis. Bryman  AedsLiao  TFedsLewis-Beck  MSedsThe SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Sciences Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE Publications2004;
Reboussin  BAReboussin  DMLiang  KYAnthony  JC Latent transition modeling of progression of health-risk behavior. Multivariate Behav Res 1998;33 (4) 457- 478
Chung  HPark  YLanza  ST Latent transition analysis with covariates: pubertal timing and substance use behavior in adolescent females. Stat Med 2005;24 (18) 2895- 2910
PubMed
Dempster  APLaird  NMRubin  DB Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm with discussion. J R Stat Soc B 1977;391- 38
Schwarz  G Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 1978;6 (2) 461- 464
Velicer  WFMartin  RACollins  LM Latent transition analysis for longitudinal data. Addiction 1996;91 ((suppl)) S197- S209
PubMed
Jansen  SJKievit  JNooij  MStiggelbout  A Stability of patients' preferences for chemotherapy: the impact of experience. Med Decis Making 2001;21 (4) 295- 306
PubMed
Menon  ASCampbell  DRuskin  PHebel  JR Depression, hopelessness, and the desire for life-saving treatments among elderly medically ill veterans. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000;8 (4) 333- 342
PubMed
Lee  MGanzini  L The effect of recovery from depression on preferences for life-sustaining therapy in older patients. J Gerontol 1994;49 (1) M15- M21
PubMed
Blank  KRobison  JDoherty  EPrigerson  HDuffy  JSchwartz  HI Life-sustaining treatment and assisted death choices in depressed older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49 (2) 153- 161
PubMed
Danis  MGarrett  JHarris  RPatrick  DL Stability of choices about life-sustaining treatments. Ann Intern Med 1994;120 (7) 567- 573
PubMed
Rosenfeld  KEWenger  NSPhillips  RS  et al.  Factors associated with change in resuscitation preference of seriously ill patients. Arch Intern Med 1996;156 (14) 1558- 1564
PubMed
Eggar  RSpencer  AAnderson  DHiller  L Views of elderly patients on cardiopulmonary resuscitation before and after treatment for depression. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002;17 (2) 170- 174
PubMed
Hakim  RBTeno  JMHarrell  FE  et al. SUPPORT Investigators, Factors associated with do-not-resuscitate orders: patients' preferences, prognoses, and physicians' judgments. Ann Intern Med 1996;125 (4) 284- 293
PubMed
Walker  RMSchonwetter  RSKramer  DRRobinson  BE Living wills and resuscitation preferences in an elderly population. Arch Intern Med 1995;155 (2) 171- 175
PubMed
Fried  TRVan Ness  PHByers  ALTowle  VRO'Leary  JRDubin  JA Changes in preferences for life-sustaining treatment among older persons with advanced illness. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22 (4) 495- 501
PubMed
Fried  TRByers  ALGallo  WT  et al.  Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults. Arch Intern Med 2006;166 (8) 890- 893
PubMed
McParland  ELikourezos  AChichin  ECastor  TParis  BE Stability of preferences regarding life-sustaining treatment: a two-year prospective study of nursing home residents. Mt Sinai J Med 2003;70 (2) 85- 92
PubMed
Ditto  PHJacobson  JASmucker  WDDanks  JHFagerlin  A Context changes choices: a prospective study of the effects of hospitalization on life-sustaining treatment preferences. Med Decis Making 2006;26 (4) 313- 322
PubMed
Carmel  SMutran  EJ Stability of elderly persons' expressed preferences regarding the use of life-sustaining treatments. Soc Sci Med 1999;49 (3) 303- 311
PubMed
Rosenfeld  KEWenger  NSKagawa-Singer  M End-of-life decision making: a qualitative study of elderly individuals. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15 (9) 620- 625
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Probability of desiring specific interventions given category of desire for aggressiveness of care in 1999 and in 2002. Data are from The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study (1999-2002).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Preferences for Specific Potentially Life-Sustaining Treatments (in Response to the Hypothetical Brain Death Scenario) in 1999 vs 2002a
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Probability of Being in a Specific Potentially Life-Sustaining Treatment Preference Category in 2002 Given Treatment Preferences in 1999a
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Association of Covariates With Transitions to the Most Aggressive Category vs the Least Aggressive Category and Transitions to Intermediate Care vs the Least Aggressive Categorya

References

Institute of Medicine, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.  Washington, DC National Academies Press2001;
Singer  PAMartin  DKKelner  M Quality end-of-life care: patients' perspectives. JAMA 1999;281 (2) 163- 168
PubMed
Lynn  JTeno  JM Perceptions by family members of the dying experience of older and seriously ill patients. Ann Intern Med 1997;126 (2) 97- 106
PubMed
Ahronheim  JCMorrison  RSBaskin  SAMorris  JMeier  DE Treatment of the dying in the acute care hospital: advanced dementia and metastatic cancer. Arch Intern Med 1996;156 (18) 2094- 2100
PubMed
Hanson  LCDanis  MGarrett  J What is wrong with end-of-life care? opinions of bereaved family members. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997;45 (11) 1339- 1344
PubMed
Gallo  JJStraton  JKlag  M  et al.  Life-sustaining treatments: what do physicians want and do they express their wishes to others? J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51 (7) 961- 969
PubMed
Straton  JBWang  NYMeoni  L  et al.  Physical functioning, depression, and preferences for treatment at the end of life: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52 (4) 577- 582
PubMed
Klag  MJHe  JMead  LAFord  DEPearson  TALevine  DM Validity of physicians' self-reports of cardiovascular disease risk factors. Ann Epidemiol 1993;3 (4) 442- 447
PubMed
Thomas  CB Observations on some possible precursors of essential hypertension and coronary artery disease. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 1951;89 (6) 419- 441
PubMed
Klag  MJWang  NMeoni  L  et al.  Coffee intake and risk of hypertension: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Arch Intern Med 2002;162 (6) 657- 662
PubMed
Klag  MJFord  DMead  L  et al.  Serum cholesterol in young men and subsequent cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 1993;328 (5) 313- 318
PubMed
Emanuel  LLEmanuel  E The medical directive: a new comprehensive advance care document. JAMA 1989;261 (22) 3288- 3293
PubMed
Fischer  GSAlpert  HStoeckle  JEmanuel  L Can goals of care be used to predict intervention preferences in an advance directive? Arch Intern Med 1997;157 (7) 801- 807
PubMed
Emanuel  LLEmanuel  EJStoeckle  JDHummel  LRBarry  MJ Advance directives: stability of patients' treatment choices. Arch Intern Med 1994;154 (2) 209- 217
PubMed
Ware  JE How to Score the Revised MOS Short-Form Health Survey Scale (SF-36).  Boston, MA Health Institute, New England Medical Center Hospitals1988;
Stewart  ALedWare  JEed Measuring Functioning and Well-being.  Durham, NC Duke University Press1993;
McHorney  CA Measuring and monitoring general health status in elderly persons: practical and methodological issues in using the SF-36 health survey. Gerontologist 1996;36 (5) 571- 583
PubMed
Stewart  ALHays  RDWare  JE The MOS short-form general health survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988;26 (7) 724- 735
PubMed
Stewart  ALGreenfield  SHays  RD  et al.  Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989;262 (7) 907- 913
PubMed
Wells  KBStewart  AHays  RD  et al.  The functioning and well-being of depressed patients: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989;262 (7) 914- 919
PubMed
Stadnyk  KCalder  JRockwood  K Testing the measurement properties of the Short Form-36 Health Survey in a frail elderly population. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51 (10) 827- 835
PubMed
Lyons  RAPerry  ILittlepage  B Evidence for the validity of the Short-form 36 Questionnaire (SF-36) in an elderly population. Age Ageing 1994;23 (3) 182- 184
PubMed
Singleton  NTurner  A Measuring patients' views of their health: SF 36 is suitable for elderly patients. BMJ 1993;307 (6896) 126- 127
PubMed
Berwick  DMMurphy  JMGoldman  PAWare  JEBarsky  AJWeinstein  MC Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care 1991;29 (2) 169- 176
PubMed
McHorney  CAWare  JRaczek  A The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), II: psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31 (3) 247- 263
PubMed
Vermunt  JKMagidson  J Latent class analysis. Bryman  AedsLiao  TFedsLewis-Beck  MSedsThe SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Sciences Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE Publications2004;
Reboussin  BAReboussin  DMLiang  KYAnthony  JC Latent transition modeling of progression of health-risk behavior. Multivariate Behav Res 1998;33 (4) 457- 478
Chung  HPark  YLanza  ST Latent transition analysis with covariates: pubertal timing and substance use behavior in adolescent females. Stat Med 2005;24 (18) 2895- 2910
PubMed
Dempster  APLaird  NMRubin  DB Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm with discussion. J R Stat Soc B 1977;391- 38
Schwarz  G Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 1978;6 (2) 461- 464
Velicer  WFMartin  RACollins  LM Latent transition analysis for longitudinal data. Addiction 1996;91 ((suppl)) S197- S209
PubMed
Jansen  SJKievit  JNooij  MStiggelbout  A Stability of patients' preferences for chemotherapy: the impact of experience. Med Decis Making 2001;21 (4) 295- 306
PubMed
Menon  ASCampbell  DRuskin  PHebel  JR Depression, hopelessness, and the desire for life-saving treatments among elderly medically ill veterans. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000;8 (4) 333- 342
PubMed
Lee  MGanzini  L The effect of recovery from depression on preferences for life-sustaining therapy in older patients. J Gerontol 1994;49 (1) M15- M21
PubMed
Blank  KRobison  JDoherty  EPrigerson  HDuffy  JSchwartz  HI Life-sustaining treatment and assisted death choices in depressed older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49 (2) 153- 161
PubMed
Danis  MGarrett  JHarris  RPatrick  DL Stability of choices about life-sustaining treatments. Ann Intern Med 1994;120 (7) 567- 573
PubMed
Rosenfeld  KEWenger  NSPhillips  RS  et al.  Factors associated with change in resuscitation preference of seriously ill patients. Arch Intern Med 1996;156 (14) 1558- 1564
PubMed
Eggar  RSpencer  AAnderson  DHiller  L Views of elderly patients on cardiopulmonary resuscitation before and after treatment for depression. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002;17 (2) 170- 174
PubMed
Hakim  RBTeno  JMHarrell  FE  et al. SUPPORT Investigators, Factors associated with do-not-resuscitate orders: patients' preferences, prognoses, and physicians' judgments. Ann Intern Med 1996;125 (4) 284- 293
PubMed
Walker  RMSchonwetter  RSKramer  DRRobinson  BE Living wills and resuscitation preferences in an elderly population. Arch Intern Med 1995;155 (2) 171- 175
PubMed
Fried  TRVan Ness  PHByers  ALTowle  VRO'Leary  JRDubin  JA Changes in preferences for life-sustaining treatment among older persons with advanced illness. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22 (4) 495- 501
PubMed
Fried  TRByers  ALGallo  WT  et al.  Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults. Arch Intern Med 2006;166 (8) 890- 893
PubMed
McParland  ELikourezos  AChichin  ECastor  TParis  BE Stability of preferences regarding life-sustaining treatment: a two-year prospective study of nursing home residents. Mt Sinai J Med 2003;70 (2) 85- 92
PubMed
Ditto  PHJacobson  JASmucker  WDDanks  JHFagerlin  A Context changes choices: a prospective study of the effects of hospitalization on life-sustaining treatment preferences. Med Decis Making 2006;26 (4) 313- 322
PubMed
Carmel  SMutran  EJ Stability of elderly persons' expressed preferences regarding the use of life-sustaining treatments. Soc Sci Med 1999;49 (3) 303- 311
PubMed
Rosenfeld  KEWenger  NSKagawa-Singer  M End-of-life decision making: a qualitative study of elderly individuals. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15 (9) 620- 625
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 22

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles