IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v62y2006i1p125-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients' and healthcare providers' understandings of life-sustaining treatment: Are perceptions of goals shared or divergent?

Author

Listed:
  • Rodriguez, Keri L.
  • Young, Amanda J.

Abstract

In this cross-sectional qualitative study, researchers performed in-depth, semistructured interviews with 30 pairs of patients and their primary care providers in an outpatient clinic of a large, urban Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center in the United States. During audiotaped interviews to assess their understanding of advance directive concepts, participants were asked what "life-sustaining treatment" means to them and why they think of it in the way they do. The findings indicate that patients and providers in the United States tend to view and discuss life-sustaining treatment in terms of four goals for end-of-life care: (1) extending the length of life, (2) improving the quality of life, (3) maintaining or improving specific biological functions, and (4) assisting the body for a temporary period of time. Patients thought providers were more concerned with extending the length of life than with quality-based outcomes, and patients often discussed life-sustaining treatment as acceptable means for short-term but not long-term use. Many providers indicated that they struggle with conflicting quality-based and physiologic care goals. The findings highlight the importance of eliciting patient preferences not only for specific types of treatment, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but also for end-of-life care goals or desired health-related outcomes, such as maximizing the quantity of life. The findings also suggest that advance directives and patient-provider discussions that focus on acceptable health states and valued life activities may be better suited to patients' end-of-life care goals than those that focus on specific medical interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodriguez, Keri L. & Young, Amanda J., 2006. "Patients' and healthcare providers' understandings of life-sustaining treatment: Are perceptions of goals shared or divergent?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 125-133, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:62:y:2006:i:1:p:125-133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00257-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guadagnoli, Edward & Ward, Patricia, 1998. "Patient participation in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 329-339, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hu, Wen-Yu & Huang, Chien-Hsun & Chiu, Tai-Yuan & Hung, Shou-Hung & Peng, Jen-Kuei & Chen, Ching-Yu, 2010. "Factors that influence the participation of healthcare professionals in advance care planning for patients with terminal cancer: A nationwide survey in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1701-1704, June.
    2. Foley, Geraldine & Timonen, Virpi & Hardiman, Orla, 2014. "Exerting control and adapting to loss in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-119.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Entwistle, Vikki & Williams, Brian & Skea, Zoe & MacLennan, Graeme & Bhattacharya, Siladitya, 2006. "Which surgical decisions should patients participate in and how? Reflections on women's recollections of discussions about variants of hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 499-509, January.
    3. Johnstone, Megan-Jane & Kanitsaki, Olga, 2009. "Engaging patients as safety partners: Some considerations for ensuring a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 1-7, April.
    4. O' Donnell, Máire & Monz, Brigitta & Hunskaar, Steinar, 2007. "General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1914-1924, May.
    5. Bugge, Carol & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian S., 2006. "The significance for decision-making of information that is not exchanged by patients and health professionals during consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2065-2078, October.
    6. Francisco José García-Sánchez & Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín, 2019. "Patients’ and Caregivers’ Conceptualisations of Pressure Ulcers and the Process of Decision-Making in the Context of Home Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-14, July.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:15-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Shah, Mansi B. & Bentley, John P. & McCaffrey III, David J., 2006. "Evaluations of care by adults following a denial of an advertisement-related prescription drug request: The role of expectations, symptom severity, and physician communication style," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 888-899, February.
    9. Singh, Jagdip & Cuttler, Leona & Silvers, J. B., 2004. "Toward understanding consumers' role in medical decisions for emerging treatments: Issues, framework and hypotheses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1054-1065, September.
    10. Piotrowska, Emilia, 2020. "Udział organizacji pacjentów w kształtowaniu polityki ochrony zdrowia w Polsce - "koszmar partycypacji" czy remedium na "deficyt demokracji"?," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, October.
    11. Malpass, Alice & Shaw, Alison & Sharp, Debbie & Walter, Fiona & Feder, Gene & Ridd, Matthew & Kessler, David, 2009. ""Medication career" or "Moral career"? The two sides of managing antidepressants: A meta-ethnography of patients' experience of antidepressants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 154-168, January.
    12. Lim, Jennifer N.W. & Edlin, Richard, 2009. "Preferences of older patients and choice of treatment location in the UK: A binary choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 252-257, August.
    13. Bin Ding & Wei Liu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Dongxiao Gu & Fang Bian & Xuefeng Shao, 2019. "Effect of Patient Participation on Nurse and Patient Outcomes in Inpatient Healthcare," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    14. Susan Randles Moscato & Barbara Valanis & Christina M. Gullion & Christine Tanner & Susan E. Shapiro & Shigeko Izumi, 2007. "Predictors of Patient Satisfaction With Telephone Nursing Services," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 16(2), pages 119-137, May.
    15. Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby & Svennevig, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Pål, 2016. "Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 26-36.
    16. Werner, Perla & Vered, Iris, 2002. "Women's knowledge of new regulations about publicly funded medications for osteoporosis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 275-284, June.
    17. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.
    18. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    19. Karolina Osowiecka & Radoslaw Sroda & Arian Saied & Marek Szwiec & Sarah Mangold & Dominika Osuch & Sergiusz Nawrocki & Monika Rucinska, 2020. "Patients’ Non-Medical and Organizational Needs during Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    21. Mariusz Duplaga, 2016. "Searching for a Role of Nursing Personnel in Developing Landscape of Ehealth: Factors Determining Attitudes toward Key Patient Empowering Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:62:y:2006:i:1:p:125-133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.