IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i6p631-641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

End-of-Life Preferences: A Randomized Trial of Framing Comfort Care as Refusal of Treatment in the Context of COVID-19

Author

Listed:
  • Juliet S. Hodges

    (Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics, London, UK)

  • Lilia V. Stoyanova

    (Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics, London, UK)

  • Matteo M. Galizzi

    (Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics, London, UK)

Abstract

Background Rates of advance directive (AD) completion in the United Kingdom are lower than in the United States and other western European countries, which is especially concerning in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. UK residents typically complete an advance decision to refuse care (ADRT), whereas US versions of ADs present a more neutral choice between comfort-oriented or life-prolonging care. The purpose of this study is to test whether this framing affects decision making for end-of-life care and if this is affected by exposure to information about the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In an online experiment, 801 UK-based respondents were randomly allocated to document their preferences for end-of-life care in a 2 (US AD or UK ADRT) by 2 (presence or absence of COVID-19 prime) between-subjects factorial design. Results Most (74.8%) of participants across all conditions chose comfort-oriented care. However, framing comfort care as a refusal of treatment made respondents significantly less likely to choose it (65.4% v. 84.1%, P  

Suggested Citation

  • Juliet S. Hodges & Lilia V. Stoyanova & Matteo M. Galizzi, 2023. "End-of-Life Preferences: A Randomized Trial of Framing Comfort Care as Refusal of Treatment in the Context of COVID-19," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(6), pages 631-641, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:6:p:631-641
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231171139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231171139
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231171139?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:43:y:2023:i:6:p:631-641. 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.