IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/32116.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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," NBER Working Papers 32116, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:32116
    Note: AG EH
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w32116.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:5:p:535-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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).
    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. Sorravich Kingsuwankul & Chloe Tergiman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2023. "Why do oaths work? Image concerns and credibility in promise keeping," Working Papers hal-04209489, HAL.
    2. Luka Koning & Marianne Junger & Joris Hoof, 2020. "Digital signatures: a tool to prevent and predict dishonesty?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(2), pages 257-285, November.
    3. Cagala, Tobias & Glogowsky, Ulrich & Rincke, Johannes & Schudy, Simeon, 2024. "Commitment requests do not affect truth-telling in laboratory and online experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 179-190.
    4. Ayal, Shahar & Celse, Jérémy & Hochman, Guy, 2021. "Crafting messages to fight dishonesty: A field investigation of the effects of social norms and watching eye cues on fare evasion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 9-19.
    5. Lilleholt, Lau & Schild, Christoph & Zettler, Ingo, 2020. "Not all computerized cheating tasks are equal: A comparison of computerized and non-computerized versions of a cheating task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Prochazka, Jakub & Fedoseeva, Yulia & Houdek, Petr, 2021. "A field experiment on dishonesty: A registered replication of Azar et al. (2013)," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:32116. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.