IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i3p404-414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changes over Time in Patient Stated Values and Treatment Preferences Regarding Aggressive Therapies: Insights from the DECIDE-LVAD Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher E. Knoepke

    (Division of Cardiology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
    Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Erin L. Chaussee

    (Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Daniel D. Matlock

    (Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
    Division of Geriatric Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
    Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Division of General Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Jocelyn S. Thompson

    (Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Colleen K. McIlvennan

    (Division of Cardiology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
    Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Amrut V. Ambardekar

    (Division of Cardiology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Elisabeth M. Schaffer

    (Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Prateeti Khazanie

    (Division of Cardiology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Laura Scherer

    (Division of Cardiology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
    Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Robert M. Arnold

    (Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Division of General Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Larry A. Allen

    (Division of Cardiology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
    Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

Abstract

Background Patient-centered care includes matching treatments to patient values and preferences. This assumes clarity and consistency of values and preferences relevant to major medical decisions. We sought to describe stability of patient-reported values regarding aggressiveness of care and preferences for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for advanced heart failure. Methods and Results We conducted a secondary analysis of patients undergoing LVAD evaluation at 6 US centers. Surveys at baseline, 1 month, and 6 months included a single 10-point scale on the value of aggressive care (score 1 = “do everything,†10 = “live with whatever time I have left†) and treatment preference (LVAD, unsure, no LVAD). Data were captured for 232 patients, of whom 196 were ultimately deemed medically eligible for LVAD, and 161 were surgically implanted by 1 month. Values at baseline favored aggressive care (mean [SD], 2.49 [2.63]), trending toward less aggressive over time (1 month, 2.63 [2.05]; 6 months, 3.22 [2.70]). Between baseline and 1 month, values scores changed by ≥2 points in 28% (50/176), as did treatment preferences for 18% (29/161) of patients. Values score changes over time were associated with lower illness acceptance, depression, and eventual LVAD ineligibility. Treatment preference change was associated with values score change. Conclusion Most patients considering LVAD were stable in their values and treatment preferences. This stability, as well as the association between unstable treatment preferences and changes to stated values, highlighted the clinical utility of the values scale of aggressiveness. However, a substantial minority reported significant changes over time that may complicate the process of shared decision making. Improved methods to elicit and clarify values, including support to those with depression and low illness acceptance, is critical for patient-centered care. Highlights Self-reported values and preferences change significantly over time in about a quarter of patients actively considering left ventricular assist device implantation. Instability in stated values and preferences challenges clinicians who want to maximally match patient preferences to the treatments they receive. For most patients, clinicians can normalize the desire to maximize survival and empathize with the difficulty of making the decision. For others, clinicians may want to help patients explore the benefits and tradeoffs of therapy, including whether values other than the ones being asked about dominate their consideration.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher E. Knoepke & Erin L. Chaussee & Daniel D. Matlock & Jocelyn S. Thompson & Colleen K. McIlvennan & Amrut V. Ambardekar & Elisabeth M. Schaffer & Prateeti Khazanie & Laura Scherer & Robert M, 2022. "Changes over Time in Patient Stated Values and Treatment Preferences Regarding Aggressive Therapies: Insights from the DECIDE-LVAD Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 404-414, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:404-414
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211028234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211028234
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211028234?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annette M. O'Connor & Dawn Stacey & Michael J. Barry & Nananda F. Col & Karen B. Eden & Vikki Entwistle & Valerie Fiset & Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Sara Khangura & Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas & David R. Ro, 2007. "Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 554-574, September.
    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. Avery C. Bechthold & Christopher E. Knoepke & Deborah B. Ejem & Colleen K. McIlvennan & Rachel D. Wells & Daniel D. Matlock & Marie A. Bakitas & J. Nicholas Dionne-Odom, 2023. "How Values Are Discussed, Reflected Upon, and Acted On by Patients and Family Caregivers in the Context of Heart Failure: A Scoping Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 508-520, May.

    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. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.
    2. Lyndal Trevena, 2021. "Commentary on History of IPDAS," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 734-735, October.
    3. France Légaré & Stéphane Turcotte & Dawn Stacey & Stéphane Ratté & Jennifer Kryworuchko & Ian Graham, 2012. "Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Sergey Motorny & Surendra Sarnikar & Cherie Noteboom, 2022. "Design of an Intelligent Patient Decision aid Based on Individual Decision-Making Styles and Information Need Preferences," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1249-1264, August.
    5. Moumjid, Nora & Charles, Cathy & Morelle, Magali & Gafni, Amiram & Brémond, Alain & Farsi, Fadila & Whelan, Tim & Carrère, Marie-Odile, 2009. "The statutory duty of physicians to inform patients versus unmet patients' information needs: The case of breast cancer in France," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 162-173, July.
    6. Mary Ersek & Justine S. Sefcik & Feng-Chang Lin & Tae Joon Lee & Robin Gilliam & Laura C. Hanson, 2014. "Provider Staffing Effect on a Decision Aid Intervention," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 23(1), pages 36-53, February.
    7. Syahrir Zaini & Harvin Anbu Manivanna Bharathy & Ahmad Hatim Sulaiman & Jesjeet Singh Gill & Koh Ong Hui & Hasniza Zaman Huri & Siti Hadijah Shamsudin & Ng Chong Guan, 2018. "Development of a Strategic Tool for Shared Decision-Making in the Use of Antidepressants among Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A Focus Group Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.
    8. Stephen Auerbach, 2009. "The Impact on Patient Health Outcomes of Interventions Targeting the Patient-Physician Relationship," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(2), pages 77-84, June.

    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:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:404-414. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.