Stability and change in patient preferences and spouse substituted judgments regarding dialysis continuation

• Published in: The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences Vol. 63; no. 2; p. S81
• Main Authors: Pruchno, Rachel A, Rovine, Michael J, Cartwright, Francine, Wilson-Genderson, Maureen
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.03.2008
• Subjects: Aged; Attitude to Health; Choice Behavior; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Health Services - statistics & numerical data; Humans; Judgment; Male; Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory - statistics & numerical data; Proxy - statistics & numerical data; Spouses
• ISSN: 1079-5014
• DOI: 10.1093/geronb/63.2.S81

The objective of this study was to examine whether some treatment preferences are more stable than others, how patient preferences and substituted judgments change over time, and whether some people's decisions are more stable than others'. Hypothetical scenarios elicited preferences for dialysis continuation under various health conditions at two points in time. Predictors included initial treatment preference, age, gender, race, education, length of time on dialysis, presence of a living will, and change in patient's health. Some treatment preferences were more stable than others, and the cause of this stability varied across treatment preferences. Similarity between patient preferences and spouse substituted judgments within couples was low and varied as a function of hypothetical condition. The strongest predictor of treatment preferences at follow-up was initial preference. Age, gender, race, education, length of time on dialysis, presence of a living will, and change in patient's health had limited effects on changes to treatment preferences. There is a great deal more stability than change in patient preferences and substituted judgments regarding continuation of dialysis over the course of 1 year. This suggests that if patients have previously expressed preferences it is possible for this to maintain their voice in end-of-life decisions when the patients themselves are unable to express their wishes.