IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v22y2002i1p39-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting Elderly Outpatients’ Life-Sustaining Treatment Preferences over Time: The Majority Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Renate M. Houts

    (Center for Developmental Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • William D. Smucker

    (Department of Family Practice, Summa Health System, Akron, Ohio)

  • Jill A. Jacobson

    (Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine)

  • Peter H. Ditto

    (Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine)

  • Joseph H. Danks

    (Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio)

Abstract

Background . This study describes longitudinal changes in the composition and accuracy of modal life-sustaining treatment preferences as predictors of patients’ treatment preferences. Method . Healthy outpatients age 65 and older and their surrogate decision makers recorded preferences for 4 treatments in 9 hypothetical illness scenarios 3 times over a period of 2 years. A statistical prediction model, based on patients’ modal preferences, was created using initial responses and updated 2 years later. Results . When reestimating the model at 2 years, 4 of 27 items in the model created using baseline responses no longer reached the threshold for inclusion, but 5 new items did meet criteria. All modal preference changes reflected a trend toward refusing treatment. Both the original and updated models were more accurate in predicting patients’ preferences than were surrogates making concurrent predictions. Adding covariates (e.g., gender, age, presence of plans for future medical care) did not alter the model’s predictive superiority over surrogates. Conclusions . Models using modal preferences are useful to patients, surrogates, and physicians when trying to accurately discern end-of-life treatment choices, but the models must be updated periodically.

Suggested Citation

  • Renate M. Houts & William D. Smucker & Jill A. Jacobson & Peter H. Ditto & Joseph H. Danks, 2002. "Predicting Elderly Outpatients’ Life-Sustaining Treatment Preferences over Time: The Majority Rules," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 39-52, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:1:p:39-52
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0202200104
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0202200104?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norman F. Boyd & Heather J. Sutherland & Karen Z. Heasman & David L. Tritchler & Bernard J. Cummings, 1990. "Whose Utilities for Decision Analysis?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(1), pages 58-67, February.
    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. Patricia Cubí‐Mollá & Mireia Jofre‐Bonet & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2017. "Adaptation to health states: Sick yet better off?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1826-1843, December.
    2. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    3. Octave Jokung & Serge Macé, 2013. "Long-term health investment when people underestimate their adaptation to old age-related health problems," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 1003-1013, December.
    4. de Wit, G.Ardine & Ramsteijn, Paul G & de Charro, Frank Th, 1998. "Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 215-232, June.
    5. Schünemann, Johannes & Strulik, Holger & Trimborn, Timo, 2017. "Going from bad to worse: Adaptation to poor health health spending, longevity, and the value of life," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 130-146.
    6. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    7. Aliasghar A. Kiadaliri & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Björn Eliasson & Soffia Gudbjörnsdottir & Ann-Marie Svensson & Katarina Steen Carlsson, 2014. "Health Utilities of Type 2 Diabetes-Related Complications: A Cross-Sectional Study in Sweden," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, May.
    8. Shiell, Alan, 1997. "Health outcomes are about choices and values: an economic perspective on the health outcomes movement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 5-15, January.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:146-152 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Hans-Helmut König & Oliver Günther & Matthias Angermeyer & Christiane Roick, 2009. "Utility Assessment in Patients with Mental Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 405-419, May.
    12. Peter A. Ubel & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel, 2000. "Societal value, the person trade‐off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 127-136, March.
    13. Valerie Seror, 2008. "Fitting observed and theoretical choices – women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 557-577, May.
    14. Paul McNamee & Sharon Glendinning & Jonathan Shenfine & Nick Steen & S. Griffin & John Bond, 2004. "Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 81-86, February.
    15. Matthias Wrede, 2005. "Health Values, Preference Inconsistency, and Insurance Demand," CESifo Working Paper Series 1634, CESifo.
    16. Björn Sossong & Stefan Felder & Malte Wolff & Klaus Krüger, 2017. "Evaluating the consequences of rheumatoid arthritis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 685-696, July.
    17. Touré, Moustapha & Poder, Thomas G., 2024. "Differences in health utilities between cancer patients and the general population: The case of Quebec using the SF-6Dv2," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 351(C).
    18. A. Pickard & Rima Tawk & James Shaw, 2013. "The effect of chronic conditions on stated preferences for health," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(4), pages 697-702, August.
    19. Cubi-Molla, P. & Jofre-Bonet, M. & Serra-Sastre, V., 2013. "Adaptation to Health States: A Micro-Econometric Approach," Working Papers 13/02, Department of Economics, City University London.
    20. Heather P. Lacey & Angela Fagerlin & George Loewenstein & Dylan M. Smith & Jason Riis & Peter A. Ubel, 2006. "It must be awful for them: Healthy people overlook disease variability in quality of life judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 146-152, November.
    21. Jiryoun Gong & Juhee Han & Donghwan Lee & Seungjin Bae, 2020. "A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-16, December.

    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:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:1:p:39-52. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.