Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Changes in Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatment Among Older Persons with Advanced Illness

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting assumptions regarding how patients’ preferences for life-sustaining treatment change over the course of serious illness.

OBJECTIVE

To examine changes in treatment preferences over time.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study with 2-year follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred twenty-six community-dwelling persons age ≥60 years with advanced cancer, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

MEASUREMENTS

Participants were asked, if faced with an illness exacerbation that would be fatal if untreated, whether they would: a) undergo high-burden treatment at a given likelihood of death and b) undergo low-burden treatment at a given likelihood of severe disability, versus a return to current health.

RESULTS

There was little change in the overall proportions of participants who would undergo therapy at a given likelihood of death or disability from first to final interview. Diversity within the population regarding the highest likelihood of death or disability at which the individual would undergo therapy remained substantial over time. Despite a small magnitude of change, the odds of participants’ willingness to undergo high-burden therapy at a given likelihood of death and to undergo low-burden therapy at a given likelihood of severe cognitive disability decreased significantly over time. Greater functional disability, poorer quality of life, and lower self-rated life expectancy were associated with decreased willingness to undergo therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Diversity among older persons with advanced illness regarding treatment preferences persists over time. Although the magnitude of change is small, there is a decreased willingness to undergo highly burdensome therapy or to risk severe disability in order to avoid death over time and with declining health status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Christakis NA, Escarce JJ. Survival of Medicare patients after enrollment in hospice programs. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:172–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Meier DE, Morrison RS. Autonomy reconsidered. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1087–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Finucane TE. How gravely ill becomes dying: a key to end-of-life care. JAMA. 1999;282:1670–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Danis M, Garrett J, Harris R, Patrick DL. Stability of choices about life-sustaining treatments. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:567–73.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Straton JB, Wang NY, Meoni LA, et al. Physical functioning, depression, and preferences for treatment at the end of life: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:577–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Everhart MA, Pearlman RA. Stability of patient preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments. Chest. 1990;97:159–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Silverstein MD, Stocking CB, Antel JP, Beckwith J, Roos RP, Siegler M. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and life-sustaining therapy: patients’ desires for information, participation in decision making, and life-sustaining therapy. Mayo Clin Proc. 1991;66:906–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Weissman JS, Haas JS, Fowler FJ, Jr., et al. The stability of preferences for life-sustaining care among persons with AIDS in the Boston Health Study. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:16–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ditto PH, Smucker WD, Danks JH, et al. Stability of older adults’ preferences for life-sustaining medical treatment. Health Psychol. 2003;22:605–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosenfeld KE, Wenger NS, Phillips RS, et al. Factors associated with change in resuscitation preference of seriously ill patients. The SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1558–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosenfeld KE, Wenger NS, Kagawa-Singer M. End-of-life decision making: a qualitative study of elderly individuals. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:620–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fried TR, Bradley EH. What matters to older seriously ill persons making treatment decisions? A qualitative study. J Pall Med. 2003;6:237–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Murphy DJ, Burrows D, Santilli S, et al. The influence of the probability of survival on patients’ preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:545–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fried TR, Byers AL, Gallo WT, et al. Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:890–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. The Connecticut Hospice Inc. Summary Guidelines for Initiation of Advanced Care. Branford, CT: John Thompson Institute; 1996.

  16. Murphy DJ, Knaus WA, Lynn J. Study population in SUPPORT: patients (as defined by disease categories and mortality projections), surrogates, and physicians. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:11S–28S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Inouye SK, Peduzzi PN, Robison JT, Hughes JS, Horwitz RI, Concato J. Importance of functional measures in predicting mortality among older hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998;279:1187–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23:433–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Royall DR, Mahurin RK, Gray KF. Bedside assessment of executive cognitive impairment: the executive interview. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40:1221–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185:914–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pearlin LI, Lieberman MA, Menaghan EG, Mullan JT. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav. 1981;22:337–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Whooley MA, Avins AL, Miranda J, Browner WS. Case-finding instruments for depression. Two questions are as good as many. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:439–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Fried TR, Bradley EH, Towle VR. Assessment of patient preferences: Integrating treatments and outcomes. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002;57:S348–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Danis M, Mutran E, Garrett JM, et al. A prospective study of the impact of patient preferences on life-sustaining treatment and hospital cost. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:1811–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pearlman RA, Cain KC, Patrick DL, et al. Insights pertaining to patient assessments of states worse than death. J Clin Ethics. 1993;4:33–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Dales RE, O’Connor A, Hebert P, Sullivan K, McKim D, Llewellyn-Thomas H. Intubation and mechanical ventilation for COPD: development of an instrument to elicit patient preferences. Chest. 1999;116:792–800.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tsevat J, Dawson NV, Wu AW, et al. Health values of hospitalized patients 80 years or older. HELP Investigators. Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project. JAMA. 1998;279:371–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Puhan MA, Guyatt GH, Montori VM, et al. The standard gamble demonstrated lower reliability than the feeling thermometer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:458–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Souchek J, Stacks JR, Brody B, et al. A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit. Med Care. Oct 2000;38:1040–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bravata DM, Nelson LM, Garber AM, Goldstein MK. Invariance and inconsistency in utility ratings. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:158–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Llewellyn-Thomas HA. Investigating patients’ preferences for different treatment options. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29:45–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1989;9:142–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Breslow NE, Clayton DG. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:125–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McCulloch CE, Searle SR. Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dos Santos DM, Berridge DM. A continuation ratio random effects model for repeated ordinal responses. Stat Med. 2000;19:3377–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. SAS Software System. Version 9.1. In. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2000.

  38. Pearlman RA, Starks HE, Cain KC, Cole WG, Patrick DL, Uhlmann RF. Integrating preferences for life-sustaining treatments and health state ratings into meaningful advance care discussions. In: van der Heide A, Onwuteaka–Philipsen B, Emanuel EJ, van der Maas PJ, van der Wal G, eds. Clinical and Epidemiological Aspects of End-of-Life Decision-Making. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1507–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. National Institutes of Health. State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Improving End-of-Life Care. Bethesda, M.D.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Blackhall LJ, Frank G, Murphy ST, Michel V, Palmer JM, Azen SP. Ethnicity and attitudes towards life sustaining technology. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1779–89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Borum ML, Lynn J, Zhong Z. The effects of patient race on outcomes in seriously ill patients in SUPPORT: an overview of economic impact, medical intervention, and end-of-life decisions. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:S194–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Shrank WH, Kutner JS, Richardson T, Mularski RA, Fischer S, Kagawa-Singer M. Focus group findings about the influence of culture on communication preferences in end-of-life care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:703–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Singer PA, Martin DK, Kelner M. Quality end-of-life care: patients’ perspectives. JAMA. 1999;281:163–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ditto PH, Druley JA, Moore KA, Danks JH, Smucker WD. Fates worse than death: the role of valued life activities in health-state evaluations. Health Psychol. 1996;15:332–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Fried TR, van Doorn C, O’Leary JR, Tinetti ME, Drickamer MA. Older persons’ preferences for site of terminal care. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:109–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Fagerlin A, Schneider CE. Enough. The failure of the living will. Hastings Cent Rep. 2004;34:30–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Carm Joncas, R.N. and Barbara Mendes, R.N. for their interviewing skills.

This study was supported by grant PCC-98-070-1 from VA HSR&D, R01 AG19769 from the National Institute on Aging, P30 AG21342 from the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center at Yale, and a Paul Beeson Physician Faculty Scholars Award. Dr. Fried is supported by K02 AG20113 from the National Institute on Aging.

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest

None disclosed

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, 950 Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT, 06516, USA

    Terri R. Fried MD

  2. Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Terri R. Fried MD

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Peter H. Van Ness PhD, MPH

  4. Program on Aging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Peter H. Van Ness PhD, MPH, Virginia R. Towle MPhil & John R. O’Leary MA

  5. Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA

    Amy L. Byers PhD

  6. Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

    Joel A. Dubin PhD

  7. Department of Health Studies and Gerontology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

    Joel A. Dubin PhD

Authors
  1. Terri R. Fried MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter H. Van Ness PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy L. Byers PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Virginia R. Towle MPhil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John R. O’Leary MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joel A. Dubin PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terri R. Fried MD.

Appendix

Appendix

Scenario 1

Think about if you were suddenly to get sick with an illness that would require you to be in the hospital for at least a month. It would either be that your [CHF, COPD, cancer] worsened, or you got sick with a different illness. In the hospital, you would need to have many minor tests, such as x-rays and blood draws, and you would require more tests, such as CT scans. You would need major therapies such as being in the intensive care unit, receiving surgery, or having a breathing machine. Without the treatment, you would not survive. If this treatment would get you back to your current state of health, would you want to have it?

If NO: Question complete.

If YES: Now, what if the doctor told you that there was a 50/50 chance that it would work and get you back to your current state of health. If it did not work, you would not survive. Without the treatment, then you would not survive for certain. Would you want the treatment?

If NO: Now what if the doctor told you there were a 90% (99%) chance that it would work and get you back to your current state of health and a 10% (1%) chance that it would not. Without the treatment, then you would not survive for certain. Would you want the treatment?

If YES: Now, what if the doctor told you there was a 10% (1%) chance that it would work and get you back to your current state of health and a 90% (99%) chance that it would not work. Without the treatment, then you would not survive for certain. Would you want the treatment?

Scenario 2

Think again about if you were suddenly to get sick with an illness that would require you to be in the hospital for a few days to a week. It would either be that your [CHF, COPD, cancer] worsened, or you got sick with a different illness. In the hospital, you would need to have minor tests, such as x-rays and blood draws, and therapies such as intravenous antibiotics and oxygen. However, this time, imagine that at the end of the treatment, you would be in a state where you would be bedbound. You would not be able to get up out of bed to the bathroom by yourself, and you would need help with all of your daily activities. Without the treatment, you would not survive. Would you want the treatment?

If YES: Question complete.

If NO: Now, what if the doctor told you that there was a 50/50 chance that it would get you back to your current state or would leave you bedbound. Without the treatment, then you would not survive for certain. Would you want the treatment?

If NO: Now what if the doctor told you there were a 90% (99%) chance that it would work and get you back to your current state of health and a 10% (1%) chance that it would leave you bedbound. Without the treatment, then you would not survive for certain. Would you want the treatment?

If YES: Now, what if the doctor told you there was a 10% (1%) chance that it would work and get you back to your current state of health and a 90% (99%) chance that it would leave you bedbound. Without the treatment, then you would not survive for certain. Would you want the treatment?

Scenario 3

Think again about if you were suddenly to get sick with an illness that would require you to be in the hospital for a few days to a week. It would either be that your [CHF, COPD, cancer] worsened, or you got sick with a different illness. In the hospital, you would need to have minor tests, such as x-rays and blood draws, and therapies such as intravenous antibiotics and oxygen. Now imagine that the treatment would leave you in a state where your mind would not be working, such that you would not be aware of what was going on around you or be able to recognize your loved ones. Without the treatment, you would not survive. Would you want the treatment?

If YES: Question complete.

If NO: Now, what if the doctor told you that there was a 50/50 chance that it would get you back to your current state or would leave you unaware. Without the treatment, then you would not survive for certain. Would you want the treatment?

If NO: Now what if the doctor told you there were a 90% (99%) chance that it would work and get you back to your current state of health and a 10% (1%) chance that it would leave you unaware. Without the treatment, then you would not survive for certain. Would you want the treatment?

If YES: Now, what if the doctor told you there was a 10% (1%) chance that it would work and get you back to your current state of health and a 90% (99%) chance that it would leave you unaware. Without the treatment, then you would not survive for certain. Would you want the treatment?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fried, T.R., Van Ness, P.H., Byers, A.L. et al. Changes in Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatment Among Older Persons with Advanced Illness. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 495–501 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0104-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0104-9

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation