Suppr超能文献

问不同的问题,得到不同的答案:为什么生前预嘱是指导末期护理偏好的糟糕指南。

Ask a different question, get a different answer: why living wills are poor guides to care preferences at the end of life.

机构信息

Center for Applied Research on Aging and Health, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, USA.

出版信息

J Palliat Med. 2010 May;13(5):567-72. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2009.0311.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Living wills have a poor record of directing care at the end of life, as a copious literature attests. Some speculation centers on the questionable correspondence between the scenario described in living wills versus the real-life circumstances that typically arise at the end of life.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the strength of association between responses to a standard living will question and preferences for treatments in six end-of-life scenarios.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Telephone interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred two community-dwelling men and women 70 years of age or older in the greater Philadelphia area.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Strength of preferences for four life-sustaining treatments in each of six poor-health scenarios.

RESULTS

Associations between responses to the standard living will question and preferences for treatment (means across the four) in six specific scenarios were statistically significant but modest in size, accounting for 23% of variance at most. The association for the worse-case scenario (severe stroke with coma) was significantly stronger than for any other association.

CONCLUSIONS

The modest correspondence between living will responses and wishes for life-sustaining treatment in specific scenarios helps to elucidate the living will's poor performance. Presentation of more realistic end-of-life scenarios should improve the living will's ability to guide care, as well as preparing patients and families better for the end of life.

摘要

背景

大量文献证明,生前预嘱在指导末期医疗照护方面的记录不佳。一些推测集中在生前预嘱中描述的情况与末期实际情况之间可疑的一致性上。

目的

评估对标准生前预嘱问题的回答与在六种末期生命场景下对治疗的偏好之间的关联强度。

设计

横断面。

地点

电话访谈。

参与者

费城大都市区 202 名 70 岁或以上的社区居住的男性和女性。

主要观察指标

在六种健康状况不佳的场景中,对四种维持生命的治疗方法的偏好强度。

结果

对标准生前预嘱问题的回答与在六种特定场景下对治疗的偏好(四种的平均值)之间的关联具有统计学意义,但关联强度适中,最多只能解释 23%的差异。最坏情况下(严重中风伴昏迷)的关联明显强于其他任何关联。

结论

生前预嘱的回答与特定场景中对维持生命的治疗的愿望之间的适度一致性有助于阐明生前预嘱的不佳表现。呈现更现实的临终场景应能提高生前预嘱指导护理的能力,并使患者和家属更好地为生命的终结做好准备。

相似文献

3
Patient values and preferences for end-of-life treatments: are values better predictors than a living will?
J Palliat Med. 2013 Apr;16(4):362-8. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2012.0303. Epub 2013 Feb 26.
4
The default effect in end-of-life medical treatment preferences.
Med Decis Making. 2007 May-Jun;27(3):299-310. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07300608.
6
Life values, resuscitation preferences, and the applicability of living wills in an older population.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996 Aug;44(8):954-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb01867.x.
7
Effect of Living Wills on End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Jan;67(1):164-171. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15630. Epub 2018 Dec 3.
10
Current health and preferences for life-prolonging treatments: an application of prospect theory to end-of-life decision making.
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Oct;65(8):1695-707. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.06.012. Epub 2007 Jul 25.

引用本文的文献

2
Forms or Free-Text? Measuring Advance Care Planning Activity Using Electronic Health Records.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2023 Nov;66(5):e615-e624. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2023.07.016. Epub 2023 Aug 1.
5
Living Wills: One Part of the Advance Care Planning Puzzle.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Jan;67(1):9-10. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15688. Epub 2018 Dec 3.
6
Does special education in palliative medicine make a difference in end-of-life decision-making?
BMC Palliat Care. 2018 Jul 18;17(1):94. doi: 10.1186/s12904-018-0349-6.
7
The Voice Is As Mighty As the Pen: Integrating Conversations into Advance Care Planning.
J Bioeth Inq. 2018 Jun;15(2):185-191. doi: 10.1007/s11673-018-9848-7. Epub 2018 Mar 17.
8
Retroperitoneal Mass Masquerading as Failure to Thrive in a 91-year-old Woman.
Cureus. 2017 Nov 8;9(11):e1831. doi: 10.7759/cureus.1831.
10
Measuring engagement in advance care planning: a cross-sectional multicentre feasibility study.
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 23;6(6):e010375. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010375.

本文引用的文献

1
Preferences for life-prolonging medical treatments and deference to the will of god.
J Relig Health. 2009 Dec;48(4):418-30. doi: 10.1007/s10943-008-9205-y. Epub 2008 Aug 20.
2
Health care costs in the last week of life: associations with end-of-life conversations.
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 9;169(5):480-8. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.587.
3
Family discord and proxy decision makers' end-of-life treatment decisions.
J Palliat Med. 2008 Oct;11(8):1109-14. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2008.0039.
6
Current health and preferences for life-prolonging treatments: an application of prospect theory to end-of-life decision making.
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Oct;65(8):1695-707. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.06.012. Epub 2007 Jul 25.
7
Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults.
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Apr 24;166(8):890-5. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.8.890.
8
The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review.
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Mar 13;166(5):493-7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.5.493.
9
Enough. The failure of the living will.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2004 Mar-Apr;34(2):30-42.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验