| Title |
Intricate decision making: ambivalences and barriers when fulfilling an advance directive
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s109040 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lars Schröder, Gerhard Hommel, Stephan Sahm |
| Abstract |
Despite a recent statutory ruling stating the binding nature of advance directives (ADs), only a minority of the population has signed one. Yet, a majority deem it of utmost importance to ensure their wishes are followed through in case they are no longer able to decide. The reasons for this discrepancy have not yet been investigated sufficiently. This article is based on a survey of patients using a well-established structured questionnaire. First, patients were asked about their attitudes with respect to six therapeutic options at the end of life: intravenous fluids, artificial feeding, antibiotics, analgesia, chemotherapy/dialysis, and artificial ventilation; and second, they were asked about the negative effects related to the idea of ADs surveying their apprehensions: coercion to fulfill an AD, dictatorial reading of what had been laid down, and abuse of ADs. A total of 1,260 interviewees completed the questionnaires. A significant percentage of interviewees were indecisive with respect to therapeutic options, ranging from 25% (analgesia) to 45% (artificial feeding). There was no connection to health status. Apprehensions about unwanted effects of ADs were widespread, at 51%, 35%, and 43% for coercion, dictatorial reading, and abuse, respectively. A significant percentage of interviewees were unable to anticipate decisions about treatment options at the end of life. Apprehensions about negative adverse effects of ADs are widespread. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 21% |
| Psychology | 4 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,432,668
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,068
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,421
of 381,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#55
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.