Frey Renato, Hertwig Ralph, Herzog Stefan M
Center for Cognitive and Decision Sciences, University of Basel, Switzerland (RF).
Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany (RF, RH, SMH)
Med Decis Making. 2014 Feb;34(2):258-69. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12471729. Epub 2013 Jan 29.
Making surrogate decisions on behalf of incapacitated patients can raise difficult questions for relatives, physicians, and society. Previous research has focused on the accuracy of surrogate decisions (i.e., the proportion of correctly inferred preferences). Less attention has been paid to the procedural satisfaction that patients' surrogates and patients attribute to specific approaches to making surrogate decisions. The objective was to investigate hypothetical patients' and surrogates' procedural satisfaction with specific approaches to making surrogate decisions and whether implementing these preferences would lead to tradeoffs between procedural satisfaction and accuracy.
Study 1 investigated procedural satisfaction by assigning participants (618 in a mixed-age but relatively young online sample and 50 in an older offline sample) to the roles of hypothetical surrogates or patients. Study 2 (involving 64 real multigenerational families with a total of 253 participants) investigated accuracy using 24 medical scenarios.
Hypothetical patients and surrogates had closely aligned preferences: Procedural satisfaction was highest with a patient-designated surrogate, followed by shared surrogate decision-making approaches and legally assigned surrogates. These approaches did not differ substantially in accuracy. Limitations are that participants' preferences regarding existing and novel approaches to making surrogate decisions can only be elicited under hypothetical conditions.
Next to decision making by patient-designated surrogates, shared surrogate decision making is the preferred approach among patients and surrogates alike. This approach appears to impose no tradeoff between procedural satisfaction and accuracy. Therefore, shared decision making should be further studied in representative samples of the general population, and if people's preferences prove to be robust, they deserve to be weighted more strongly in legal frameworks in addition to patient-designated surrogates.
代表无行为能力的患者做出替代决策,这可能给亲属、医生和社会带来难题。以往的研究主要关注替代决策的准确性(即正确推断偏好的比例)。对于患者代理人及患者对特定替代决策方式的程序满意度关注较少。本研究旨在调查假设的患者及代理人对特定替代决策方式的程序满意度,以及实施这些偏好是否会导致程序满意度与准确性之间的权衡。
研究1通过让参与者(618名来自混合年龄但相对年轻的在线样本,50名来自年龄较大的线下样本)分别扮演假设的代理人或患者的角色来调查程序满意度。研究2(涉及64个真实的多代家庭,共253名参与者)使用24个医疗场景来调查准确性。
假设的患者和代理人的偏好高度一致:患者指定代理人的程序满意度最高,其次是共同替代决策方式和法定指定代理人。这些方式在准确性上没有显著差异。局限性在于,参与者对现有及新的替代决策方式的偏好只能在假设条件下得出。
除了患者指定代理人进行决策外,共同替代决策是患者和代理人都偏好的方式。这种方式似乎不会在程序满意度和准确性之间造成权衡。因此,应在一般人群的代表性样本中进一步研究共同决策,如果人们的偏好经证实具有稳定性,那么除了患者指定代理人外,它们在法律框架中也应得到更有力的考量。