IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v59y2004i12p2467-2477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences in end-of-life care of older persons: after-death interviews with proxy respondents

Author

Listed:
  • Klinkenberg, Marianne
  • Willems, Dick L.
  • Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Bregje D.
  • Deeg, Dorly J. H.
  • van der Wal, Gerrit

Abstract

This population-based study employing after-death interviews with proxies describes older persons' preferences regarding medical care at the end of life. Interviews were held with 270 proxy respondents of 342 deceased persons (age range 59-91) in the Netherlands, The deceased were respondents to the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. The prevalence of advance directives (ADs), preferences for medical decisions at the end of life (i.e. withholding treatment, physician-assisted suicide euthanasia) and preferences about the focus of treatment in the last week of life (i.e. comfort care versus extending life) were examined. Written ADs were present in 14% of the sample. A quarter had designated a surrogate decision-maker. Co-morbidity and perceived self-efficacy (PSE) were positively associated with ADs. About half the sample had expressed a preference in favour or against one or more medical decisions at the end of life. Predictors positively associated with expressing a preference were co-morbidity, dying from cancer, and PSE. Being religious was negatively associated with expressing a preference. The knowledge of the proxy regarding the older person's preference for the focus of treatment was dependent on the patient's symptom burden as perceived by the proxy. The majority of older persons had died without either an AD, or having expressed preferences for end-of-life care. Stimulating the formulation of ADs may help professionals who work with older people to understand these preferences better, especially in the case of non-cancer patients and those with low PSE.

Suggested Citation

  • Klinkenberg, Marianne & Willems, Dick L. & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Bregje D. & Deeg, Dorly J. H. & van der Wal, Gerrit, 2004. "Preferences in end-of-life care of older persons: after-death interviews with proxy respondents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(12), pages 2467-2477, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:12:p:2467-2477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(04)00185-6
    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.

    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. Rurup, Mette L. & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Bregje D. & van der Heide, Agnes & van der Wal, Gerrit & Deeg, Dorly J.H., 2006. "Frequency and determinants of advance directives concerning end-of-life care in The Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(6), pages 1552-1563, March.
    3. Jiska Cohen-Mansfield & Shai Brill, 2020. "After providing end of life care to relatives, what care options do family caregivers prefer for themselves?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, September.

    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:59:y:2004:i:12:p:2467-2477. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.