IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v26y2006i2p112-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predictors of Patient Treatment Preferences and Spouse Substituted Judgments: The Case of Dialysis Continuation

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel A. Pruchno

    (Boston College and Boston University Medical Center, Massachusetts; University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Institute for Successful Aging, 42 E. Laurel Road, Stratford, NJ 08084 pruchnra@umdnj.edu)

  • Edward P. Lemay Jr
  • Lucy Feild

    (Boston College and Boston University Medical Center, Massachusetts)

  • Norman G. Levinsky

    (Boston University Medical Center, Massachusetts)

Abstract

Objectives. To examine the factors predicting preferences for continued hemodialysis treatment among patients with endstage renal disease (ESRD) and to compare these factors to those predicting their spouses’ predictions of patients’ preferences (substituted judgments). Design. Descriptive, crosssectional. Participants. Total of 291 hemodialysis patients, aged 55 years and older, and their spouses. Measurement. Hypothetical scenarios were designed to elicit preferences for dialysis continuation under various health conditions. Other measures included the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Negative Affect Scale, Kidney Disease Symptoms Scale, Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness, single-item global subjective health and quality-of-life measures, 2-item fear of end-of-life suffering measure, and selected demographics. Results. Patients’ preferences and spouses’ judgments were only moderately correlated ( r = 0.33). Multiple regression analyses revealed that patients’ preferences to continue dialysis were positively related to education, subjective quality of life, and religious participation and negatively related to months of ESRD treatment and fear of end-of-life suffering (R 2 = 0.15). Spouses ’ substituted judgments regarding patients’ dialysis continuation preferences were positively related to African American race and spouses’ perceptions of patients ’ quality of life and negatively related to months of ESRD treatment, spouses’ perception of patients’ negative affect, and spouses’ own fear of end-of-life suffering. Conclusion. Patients and surrogates used different criteria in formulating judgments about continuation of life-sustaining treatment and had different perceptions about the patients’ condition. Furthermore, the substituted judgments of spouses were influenced by their own characteristics. These processes may explain inaccurate substituted judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel A. Pruchno & Edward P. Lemay Jr & Lucy Feild & Norman G. Levinsky, 2006. "Predictors of Patient Treatment Preferences and Spouse Substituted Judgments: The Case of Dialysis Continuation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 112-121, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:2:p:112-121
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06286482
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06286482
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06286482?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dennis J. Mazur, 2006. "How Successful Are We at Protecting Preferences? Consent, Informed Consent, Advance Directives, and Substituted Judgment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 106-109, March.
    2. Leann Schneider & Ulrich Schimmack, 2009. "Self-Informant Agreement in Well-Being Ratings: A Meta-Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 363-376, December.

    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:26:y:2006:i:2:p:112-121. 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: 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.