IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i8p1020-1033.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Importance Hierarchy of Surrogate Medical Decision Making Determinants: A Q-Methodology Study in Middle Eastern and East Asian Men

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad M. Hammami

    (Clinical Studies and Empirical Ethics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Alfaisal University College of Medicine, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

  • Kafa Abuhdeeb

    (Clinical Studies and Empirical Ethics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

  • Areej Al Balkhi

    (Clinical Studies and Empirical Ethics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

Background Factors other than patient’s preference may influence surrogate medical decision making in a culture- and viewpoint-dependent way. We explored the importance hierarchy of potential surrogate medical decision making determinants to Middle-Eastern (ME) and East-Asian (EA) men according to their norm-perception (N-viewpoint), preference as patients (P-viewpoint), and preference as surrogate decision-makers (S-viewpoint). Methods Each respondent (120 ME, 120 EA) sorted 28 items reflecting potential determinants into a fixed distribution of importance hierarchy according to the three viewpoints. Latent decision making models were explored by by-person factor analysis (Q-methodology). Results Six models were identified for each ME and EA viewpoint (total 36). Patient’s health-related, patient’s preference-related, and society’s interests-related determinants were strongly embraced in 34, 3, and zero models and strongly discounted in 2, 5, and 21 models, respectively. Patient’s religious/spiritual belief was strongly embraced in 6 EA models compared to 2 ME models and strongly discounted in 2 EA models compared to 5 ME models. Further, family-centric and surrogate’s interest-related determinants were strongly embraced in 8 EA models compared to 1 ME model. They were also strongly embraced in 5 P-viewpoint compared to 2 S-viewpoint models and strongly discounted in 4 P-viewpoint compared to 11 S-viewpoint models. Despite the overall predominance of patient’s health-related determinants and culture- and viewpoint-dependent differences, Q-methodology analysis identified relatively patient’s preference-influenced, religious/spiritual beliefs–influenced, emotion-influenced, and familism-influenced models and showed notable overlap in models. Conclusions Patient’s health was more important than other potential medical surrogate decision making determinants, including patient’s preference, for both ME and EA men and in all viewpoints. The relative importance of some determinants was culture- and viewpoint- dependent and allowed description of different albeit overlapping models.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad M. Hammami & Kafa Abuhdeeb & Areej Al Balkhi, 2020. "Importance Hierarchy of Surrogate Medical Decision Making Determinants: A Q-Methodology Study in Middle Eastern and East Asian Men," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(8), pages 1020-1033, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:8:p:1020-1033
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20963042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20963042
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20963042?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
    ---><---

    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:40:y:2020:i:8:p:1020-1033. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.