1 Department of Psychology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana.
2 Section of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana.
J Palliat Med. 2019 Jun;22(6):628-634. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2018.0206. Epub 2019 Jan 7.
Geographic disparities in access to palliative care cause unnecessary suffering near the end-of-life in low-access U.S. states. The psychological mechanisms accounting for state-level variation are poorly understood. To examine whether statewide differences in personality account for variation in palliative care access. We combined 5 state-level datasets that included the 50 states and national capital. Palliative care access was measured by the Center to Advance Palliative Care 2015 state-by-state report card. State-level personality differences in openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and extraversion were identified in a report on 619,387 adults. The Census and Gallup provided covariate data. Regression analyses examined whether state-level personality predicted state-level palliative care access, controlling for population size, age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and political views. Sensitivity analyses controlled for rurality, nonprofit status, and hospital size. Palliative care access was higher in states that were older, less racially diverse, higher in socioeconomic status, more liberal, and, as hypothesized, higher in openness. In regression analyses accounting for all predictors and covariates, higher openness continued to account for better state-level access to palliative care ( = 0.428, = 0.008). Agreeableness also emerged as predicting better access. In sensitivity analyses, personality findings persisted, and less rural states and those with more nonprofits had better access. Palliative care access is worse in states lower in openness, meaning where residents are more skeptical, traditional, and concrete. Personality theory offers recommendations for palliative care advocates communicating with administrators, legislators, philanthropists, and patients to expand access in low-openness states.
在美国医疗资源匮乏的州,临终关怀服务的可及性存在地域差异,导致患者在生命末期承受了不必要的痛苦。导致各州之间存在差异的心理机制尚未得到充分理解。本研究旨在探讨各州的人格差异是否可以解释临终关怀服务可及性的差异。我们结合了 5 个州级数据集,包括 50 个州和首都地区。通过中心推进姑息治疗 2015 年的州级报告卡来衡量姑息治疗的可及性。在一份关于 619387 名成年人的报告中,确定了开放性、尽责性、宜人性、神经质和外向性等州级人格差异。人口普查和盖洛普提供了协变量数据。回归分析检验了在控制人口规模、年龄、性别、种族/民族、社会经济地位和政治观点的情况下,州级人格是否可以预测州级姑息治疗的可及性。敏感性分析控制了农村地区、非营利组织和医院规模。在考虑了所有预测因素和协变量的回归分析中,年龄较大、种族多样性较低、社会经济地位较高、政治观点较自由的州,姑息治疗的可及性更高。正如假设的那样,开放性越高,州级姑息治疗的可及性越好(β=0.428,p=0.008)。宜人性也被证明可以预测更好的姑息治疗可及性。在敏感性分析中,人格发现仍然存在,农村人口较少和非营利组织较多的州的姑息治疗可及性更好。在开放性较低的州,姑息治疗的可及性较差,这意味着居民更加怀疑、传统和具体。人格理论为姑息治疗倡导者提供了建议,即与管理人员、立法者、慈善家和患者进行沟通,以扩大在开放性较低的州的姑息治疗服务。