Stocking Carol B, Hougham Gavin W, Danner Deborah D, Patterson Marian B, Whitehouse Peter J, Sachs Greg A
Section of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Oct;55(10):1609-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01318.x. Epub 2007 Aug 21.
To evaluate a research advance directive for persons with established dementia diagnoses and their family caregivers or proxies.
Prospective randomized, controlled trial.
Three clinics, one each in Ohio, Kentucky, and Illinois.
At the end of separate interviews about enrollment choices in five types of hypothetical research projects, 149 persons with established dementia diagnoses and their family proxies were randomized to jointly complete the Planning Ahead Together (PAT) document, a research advance directive (n=69) or to remain in the control group (n=80).
The directive was assessed at two points: immediately after sample members received naturally occurring invitations to participate in other studies and again 2 years after initial enrollment.
Personal enrollment rates, reported ease of enrollment decision for patients and proxies, and proxy comfort were compared between the experimental and control groups.
Forty-one dyads were reinterviewed immediately after consent discussions for other trials. Forty-seven patients and 106 proxies were interviewed at 2-year follow-up. There was no evidence immediately after a trial enrollment opportunity or in the follow-up interview that the research advance directive (PAT) assisted patients or proxies. Enrollment rates, decision ease, and proxy comfort and certainty were similar in the PAT and control groups.
Patient and proxy experience making hypothetical decisions in the interview may have affected enrollment decisions by the PAT and control groups. Although the low number of recruitment attempts and the natural attrition of the geriatric population limit conclusions about effectiveness that may be drawn from this unique data set, the feasibility of a research advance directive is clearly demonstrated.
评估针对已确诊痴呆症患者及其家庭护理人员或代理人的研究预先指示。
前瞻性随机对照试验。
三家诊所,分别位于俄亥俄州、肯塔基州和伊利诺伊州。
在分别就五种假设性研究项目的入组选择进行访谈结束时,149名已确诊痴呆症的患者及其家庭代理人被随机分组,共同完成“一起提前规划”(PAT)文件,即一项研究预先指示(n = 69),或留在对照组(n = 80)。
在两个时间点对该指示进行评估:样本成员收到参与其他研究的自然邀请后立即评估,以及初始入组后2年再次评估。
比较实验组和对照组的个人入组率、报告的患者及代理人入组决策的难易程度,以及代理人的舒适度。
在就其他试验进行同意讨论后,立即对41对进行了再次访谈。在2年随访时,对47名患者和106名代理人进行了访谈。在试验入组机会后立即或在随访访谈中,均没有证据表明研究预先指示(PAT)对患者或代理人有帮助。PAT组和对照组的入组率、决策难易程度、代理人舒适度和确定性相似。
患者和代理人在访谈中做出假设性决策的经历可能影响了PAT组和对照组的入组决策。尽管招募尝试次数较少以及老年人群的自然损耗限制了从这个独特数据集中得出的关于有效性的结论,但研究预先指示的可行性得到了明确证明。