IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v33y2024i6p1211-1228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do surrogates make treatment decisions for patients with dementia: An experimental survey study

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren Hersch Nicholas
  • Kenneth M. Langa
  • Scott D. Halpern
  • Mario Macis

Abstract

Despite the growing need for surrogate decision‐making for older adults, little is known about how surrogates make decisions and whether advance directives would change decision‐making. We conducted a nationally representative experimental survey that cross‐randomized cognitive impairment, gender, and characteristics of advance care planning among hospitalized older adults through a series of vignettes. Our study yielded three main findings: first, respondents were much less likely to recommend life‐sustaining treatments for patients with dementia, especially after personal exposure. Second, respondents were more likely to ignore patient preferences for life‐extending treatment when the patient had dementia, and choose unwanted life‐extending treatments for patients without dementia. Third, in scenarios where the patient's wishes were unclear, respondents were more likely to choose treatments that matched their own preferences. These findings underscore the need for improved communication and decision‐making processes for patients with cognitive impairment and highlight the importance of choosing a surrogate decision‐maker with similar treatment preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren Hersch Nicholas & Kenneth M. Langa & Scott D. Halpern & Mario Macis, 2024. "How do surrogates make treatment decisions for patients with dementia: An experimental survey study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(6), pages 1211-1228, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:33:y:2024:i:6:p:1211-1228
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.4810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4810
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.4810?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tessa Haesevoets & Alain Van Hiel & Jasper Van Assche & Dries H. Bostyn & Chris Reinders Folmer, 2019. "An exploration of the motivational basis of take-some and give-some games," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(5), pages 535-546, September.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:5:p:535-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Schild, Christoph & Heck, Daniel W. & Ścigała, Karolina A. & Zettler, Ingo, 2019. "Revisiting REVISE: (Re)Testing unique and combined effects of REminding, VIsibility, and SElf-engagement manipulations on cheating behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    4. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    5. Qingxia Kong & Georg D. Granic & Nicolas S. Lambert & Chung Piaw Teo, 2020. "Judgment Error in Lottery Play: When the Hot Hand Meets the Gambler’s Fallacy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 844-862, February.
    6. Holz, Justin E. & List, John A. & Zentner, Alejandro & Cardoza, Marvin & Zentner, Joaquin E., 2023. "The $100 million nudge: Increasing tax compliance of firms using a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Raymundo M. Campos-Vazquez & Samuel D. Restrepo-Oyola, 2025. "A randomized intervention to gauge preferred tax rates and progressivity," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 32(3), pages 782-804, June.
    2. Ashantha Ranasinghe & Xuejuan Su, 2023. "When social assistance meets market power: A mixed duopoly view of health insurance in the United States," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 61(4), pages 851-869, October.
    3. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    4. Collewet, Marion & Fairley, Kim & Kessels, Roselinde & Knoef, Marike & van Vliet, Olaf, 2024. "The design of welfare: unraveling taxpayers' preferences," OSF Preprints 4am7e, Center for Open Science.
    5. Sorravich Kingsuwankul & Chloe Tergiman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2023. "Why do oaths work? Image concerns and credibility in promise keeping," Working Papers hal-04209489, HAL.
    6. Lasse J. Jessen & Sebastian Koehne & Patrick Nüß & Jens Ruhose, 2024. "Socioeconomic Inequality in Life Expectancy: Perception and Policy Demand," CESifo Working Paper Series 10940, CESifo.
    7. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Lisa Windsteiger, 2019. "Immigration vs. Poverty: Causal Impact on Demand for Redistribution in a Survey Experiment," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2019-13, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    8. Blaufus, Kay & Chirvi, Malte & Huber, Hans-Peter & Maiterth, Ralf & Sureth-Slaone, Caren, 2020. "Tax misperception and its effects on decision making: A literature review," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 261, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    9. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    10. Cabeza Martínez, Begoña, 2023. "Social preferences, support for redistribution, and attitudes towards vulnerable groups," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Cotofan, Maria & Matakos, Konstantinos, 2023. "Adapting or compounding? The effects of recurring labour shocks on stated and revealed preferences for redistribution," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121297, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Georg D. Granic, 2023. "Does choice change preferences? An incentivized test of the mere choice effect," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 499-521, July.
    13. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Rozo, Sandra, 2021. "How Does it Feel to Be Part of the Minority?: Impacts of Perspective Taking on Prosocial Behavior," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 11599, Inter-American Development Bank.
    14. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    15. Cattaneo, Maria & Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger & Wolter, Stefan C., 2020. "Information provision and preferences for education spending: Evidence from representative survey experiments in three countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    16. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    17. Cattaneo, Cristina & Grieco, Daniela, 2021. "Turning opposition into support to immigration: The role of narratives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 785-801.
    18. Da Ke, 2021. "Who Wears the Pants? Gender Identity Norms and Intrahousehold Financial Decision‐Making," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(3), pages 1389-1425, June.
    19. Claudine Gartenberg & Julie Wulf, 2017. "Pay Harmony? Social Comparison and Performance Compensation in Multibusiness Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 39-55, February.
    20. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C99 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Other
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • J14 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of the Elderly; Economics of the Handicapped; Non-Labor Market Discrimination

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:33:y:2024:i:6:p:1211-1228. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.