Factors Related to the Differential Preference for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Between Patients With Terminal Cancer and That of Their Respective Family Caregivers
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2016
Factors Related to the Differential Preference for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Between Patients With Terminal Cancer and That of Their Respective Family Caregivers
There is little information regarding concordance between preferences for end-of-life care of terminally ill patients with cancer and those of their family caregivers. A cross-sectional exploration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preference in 361 dyads was conducted. Patients or family caregivers who were willing to approve CPR were compared with dyads who did not support CPR. The patient’s quality of life was more associated with family caregiver’s willingness than patient’s willingness. A patient was more likely to prefer CPR than their caregiver in dyads of females and emotionally stable patients. A family caregiver showed stronger support for CPR if the patient had controlled pain or stable health and the family caregiver had not been counseled for CPR. Communications should be focused on these individuals to improve the planning of end-of-life care.
TulskyJA. Beyond advance directives: importance of communication skills at the end of life. JAMA. 2005;294(3):359–365.
2.
EmanuelEJEmanuelLL. Proxy decision making for incompetent patients. an ethical and empirical analysis. JAMA. 1992;267(15):2067–2071.
3.
LeeJKKeamBAnAR. Surrogate decision-making in Korean patients with advanced cancer: a longitudinal study. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(1):183–190.
4.
MackJWCroninATabackN. End-of-life care discussions among patients with advanced cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(3):204–210.
5.
EarleCCLandrumMBSouzaJMNevilleBAWeeksJCAyanianJZ. Aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life: is it a quality-of-care issue?J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(23):3860–3866.
6.
WrightAAZhangBRayA. Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA. 2008;300(14):1665–1673.
7.
BlackhallLJFrankGMurphySMichelV. Bioethics in a different tongue: the case of truth-telling. J Urban Health. 2001;78(1):59–71.
8.
YunYHHanKHParkS. Attitudes of cancer patients, family caregivers, oncologists and members of the general public toward critical interventions at the end of life of terminally ill patients. CMAJ. 2011;183(10):E673–E679.
9.
AbbottKHSagoJGBreenCMAbernethyAPTulskyJA. Families looking back: one year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(1):197–201.
10.
WendlerDRidA. Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(5):336–346.
11.
MarksMAArkesHR. Patient and surrogate disagreement in end-of-life decisions: can surrogates accurately predict patients’ preferences?Med Decis Making. 2008;28(4):524–531.
12.
ShalowitzDIGarrett-MayerEWendlerD. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(5):493–497.
13.
TangSTLiuTWLaiMSLiuLNChenCH. Concordance of preferences for end-of-life care between terminally ill cancer patients and their family caregivers in Taiwan. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30(6):510–518.
14.
SuenLJLeeHHMorrisDL. Life-sustaining treatment: a comparison of the preferences of Taiwanese older adults and their family caregiver. J Nurs Res. 2013;21(4):261–269.
15.
PruchnoRALemayEPJrFeildLLevinskyNG. Spouse as health care proxy for dialysis patients: whose preferences matter?Gerontologist. 2005;45(6):812–819.
16.
PhippsETrueGHarrisD. Approaching the end of life: attitudes, preferences, and behaviors of African-American and white patients and their family caregivers. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(3):549–554.
17.
MoormanSMCarrD. Spouses’ effectiveness as end-of-life health care surrogates: accuracy, uncertainty, and errors of overtreatment or undertreatment. Gerontologist. 2008;48(6):811–819.
18.
SonnenblickMFriedlanderYSteinbergA. Dissociation between the wishes of terminally ill parents and decisions by their offspring. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41(6):599–604.
19.
YunYHKwonYCLeeMK. Experiences and attitudes of patients with terminal cancer and their family caregivers toward the disclosure of terminal illness. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(11): 1950–1957.
20.
WittinkMNMoralesKHMeoniLA. Stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment after 3 years of follow-up: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2125–2130.
21.
JanssenDJSpruitMAScholsJM. Predicting changes in preferences for life-sustaining treatment among patients with advanced chronic organ failure. Chest. 2012;141(5):1251–1259.
22.
SmilksteinG. The family APGAR: a proposal for a family function test and its use by physicians. J Fam Pract. 1978;6(6):1231–1239.
23.
SmilksteinGAshworthCMontanoD. Validity and reliability of the family APGAR as a test of family function. J Fam Pract. 1982;15(2):303–311.
24.
YunYHParkYSLeeES. Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(4):863–868.
25.
FayersPM. Interpreting quality of life data: population-based reference data for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37(11):1331–1334.
26.
EmanuelEJ. What criteria should guide decision makers for incompetent patients?Lancet. 1988;1(8578):170–171.
27.
SulmasyDPTerryPBWeismanCS. The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(8):621–629.
28.
BlockSD.Perspectives on care at the close of life. Psychological considerations, growth, and transcendence at the end of life: the art of the possible. JAMA. 2001;285(22):2898–2905.
29.
HagedoornMSandermanRBolksHNTuinstraJCoyneJC. Distress in couples coping with cancer: a meta-analysis and critical review of role and gender effects. Psychol Bull. 2008;134(1):1–30.
30.
HelgesonVSReynoldsKATomichPL. A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74(5):797–816.
31.
RosenfeldKEWengerNSPhillipsRS. Factors associated with change in resuscitation preference of seriously ill patients. The SUPPORT Investigators. Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(14):1558–1564.
32.
HeylandDKFrankCGrollD. Understanding cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision making: perspectives of seriously ill hospitalized patients and family members. Chest. 2006;130(2):419–428.
33.
CovinskyKEFullerJDYaffeK. Communication and decision-making in seriously ill patients: findings of the SUPPORT project. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(5 suppl):S187–S193.
34.
MackJWCroninAKeatingNL. Associations between end-of-life discussion characteristics and care received near death: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(35):4387–4395.
35.
MoriMEllisonDAshikagaTMcVeighURamsayAAdesS. In-advance end-of-life discussions and the quality of inpatient end-of-life care: a pilot study in bereaved primary caregivers of advanced cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(2):629–636.
36.
StratonJBWangNYMeoniLA. Physical functioning, depression, and preferences for treatment at the end of life: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(4):577–582.
37.
FriedTRByersALGalloWT. Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(8):890–895.
38.
ParsonsHAde la CruzMJZhukovskyDS. Characteristics of patients who refuse do-not-resuscitate orders upon admission to an acute palliative care unit in a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer. 2010;116(12):3061–3070.
39.
KwakJSalmonJR. Attitudes and preferences of Korean-American older adults and caregivers on end-of-life care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(11):1867–1872.
40.
AkechiTOkuyamaTSugawaraYNakanoTShimaYUchitomiY. Major depression, adjustment disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder in terminally ill cancer patients: associated and predictive factors. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(10):1957–1965.
41.
DittoPHJacobsonJASmuckerWDDanksJHFagerlinA. Context changes choices: a prospective study of the effects of hospitalization on life-sustaining treatment preferences. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(4):313–322.
42.
TangSTLiuTWTsaiCMWangCHChangGCLiuLN. Patient awareness of prognosis, patient-family caregiver congruence on the preferred place of death, and caregiving burden of families contribute to the quality of life for terminally ill cancer patients in Taiwan. Psychooncology. 2008;17(12):1202–1209.
43.
MoHNShinDWWooJH. Is patient autonomy a critical determinant of quality of life in Korea? End-of-life decision making from the perspective of the patient. Palliat Med. 2012;26(3):222–231.
44.
HansenLArchboldPGStewartBWestfallUBGanziniL. Family caregivers making life-sustaining treatment decisions: factors associated with role strain and ease. J Gerontol Nurs. 2005;31(11):28–35.
45.
FritschJPetronioSHelftPRTorkeAM. Making decisions for hospitalized older adults: ethical factors considered by family surrogates. J Clin Ethics. 2013;24(2):125–134.
