IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i16p10071-d888512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers

Author

Listed:
  • Yuexi Yang

    (School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China)

  • Tingting Qu

    (Lumanity, Las Vegas, NV 89135, USA)

  • Jinyue Yang

    (Qingdao Center for Women and Children’s Health and Family Planning Service, Qingdao 266034, China)

  • Ben Ma

    (School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China)

  • Anli Leng

    (School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China)

Abstract

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been institutionally recognized as clinically effective by many Western healthcare systems. Nevertheless, it appears culturally unattractive in China, a country that adheres to Confucian familism which strongly prefers collective family decisions. This study examined this conflict and assessed the influence of Confucian familism on SDM in end-of-life (EOL) care for advanced cancer patients. Between August and November 2018, 188 EOL advanced-cancer patients were randomly recruited from 640 cancer hospital medical records at a Tertiary A-level hospital in Shandong province. Eventually, 164 (87.23%) sample patients were included in the statistical analysis after the non-responsive cases (4.79%) and missing value (7.98%) were removed. SDM was measured through SDM-Q-9, and the patient’s siblings were used as indicators of Confucian Familism. Of the 164 patients, the mean SDM score was 38/100; 47.6% were thoroughly unfamiliar with their treatment plans and fell outside the decision-making procedure. Each patient had four siblings on average. Ceteris paribus, more siblings led to lower SDM. Moreover, being 56–65 years old and open-minded were associated with higher SDM, while higher satisfaction of the quality of EOL care yielded lower SDM. In conclusion, Confucian familism weakened patient–clinician SDM in EOL care for advanced cancer patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuexi Yang & Tingting Qu & Jinyue Yang & Ben Ma & Anli Leng, 2022. "Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:16:p:10071-:d:888512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/10071/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/10071/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Saheb Kashaf & Elizabeth McGill, 2015. "Does Shared Decision Making in Cancer Treatment Improve Quality of Life? A Systematic Literature Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 1037-1048, November.
    2. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    3. Sumayah Rodenburg-Vandenbussche & Arwen H Pieterse & Pieter M Kroonenberg & Isabelle Scholl & Trudy van der Weijden & Gre P M Luyten & Roy F P M Kruitwagen & Henk den Ouden & Ingrid V E Carlier & Iren, 2015. "Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    4. Kathryn E. Flynn & Maureen A. Smith, 2007. "Personality and Health Care Decision-Making Style," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 62(5), pages 261-267.
    5. Sok Man Leong & Kuai In Tam & Sok Leng Che & Ming Xia Zhu, 2021. "Prevalence and Predictors of Willingness to Make Advance Directives among Macao Chinese," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-11, July.
    6. George Loewenstein, 2005. "Projection Bias in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 96-105, January.
    7. Fanni Rencz & Béla Tamási & Valentin Brodszky & László Gulácsi & Miklós Weszl & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 43-55, June.
    8. Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2019. "The promise of shared decision making in healthcare," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(1), pages 105-109, June.
    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. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    2. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    3. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    4. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    5. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    6. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    7. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    8. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    9. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    10. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    12. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    13. Ruth Astbury & Ashley Shepherd & Helen Cheyne, 2017. "Working in partnership: the application of shared decision‐making to health visitor practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 215-224, January.
    14. Teresa Briz & Andreas Drichoutis & Lisa House, 2015. "Examining projection bias in experimental auctions: the role of hunger and immediate gratification," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    16. Solomon, Josie & Knapp, Peter & Raynor, D.K. & Atkin, Karl, 2013. "Worlds apart? An exploration of prescribing and medicine-taking decisions by patients, GPs and local policy makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 264-272.
    17. Debra Kerr & Rosie Crone & Trisha Dunning, 2020. "Perspectives about dignity during acute care for older people and their relatives: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4116-4127, November.
    18. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    19. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    20. Attema, Arthur E. & Galizzi, Matteo M. & Groß, Mona & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Karay, Yassin & L’Haridon, Olivier & Wiesen, Daniel, 2023. "The formation of physician altruism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:16:p:10071-:d:888512. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.