Sense of Control in End-of-Life Decision-Making

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Volumn 65, Issue 3, 2017, Pages e70-e75

  Romo, Rafael D ^a,b   Allison, Theresa A ^b   Smith, Alexander K ^b,c   Wallhagen, Margaret I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c SAN FRANCISCO VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

decision making; end of life care; qualitative research; sense of control

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR; CALIFORNIA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; GERIATRICS; GROUNDED THEORY; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; TERMINAL CARE; UNIVERSITY; VETERAN; ADVANCE CARE PLANNING; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; FEMALE; MALE; PSYCHOLOGY; TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT; VERY ELDERLY;

ADVANCE CARE PLANNING; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GROUNDED THEORY; HUMANS; MALE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; TERMINAL CARE; TERMINALLY ILL;

EID: 85007415330     PISSN: 00028614     EISSN: 15325415     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14711     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Institute of Medicine. Dying in America: Improving Quality and Honoring Individual Preferences Near the End of Life. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015.
2. Fried TR, Bradley EH, Towle VR et al. Understanding the treatment preferences of seriously ill patients. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1061–1066.
3. Heyland DK, Dodek P, Rocker G et al. What matters most in end-of-life care: Perceptions of seriously ill patients and their family members. Can Med Assoc J 2006;174:627–633.
4. Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC et al. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA 2000;284:2476–2482.
5. Lloyd-Williams M, Kennedy V, Sixsmith A et al. The end of life: A qualitative study of the perceptions of people over the age of 80 on issues surrounding death and dying. J Pain Symptom Manage 2007;34:60–66.
6. Gott M, Seymour J, Bellamy G et al. Older people's views about home as a place of care at the end of life. Palliat Med 2004;18:460–467.
7. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
8. Ahalt C, Walter LC, Yourman L et al. “Knowing is better”: Preferences of diverse older adults for discussing prognosis. J Gen Intern Med 2011;27:568–575.
9. Heyland DK, Allan DE, Rocker G et al. Discussing prognosis with patients and their families near the end of life: Impact on satisfaction with end-of-life care. Open Med 2009;3:101–110.
10. Kelner M. Activists and delegators: Elderly patients’ preferences about control at the end of life. Soc Sci Med 1995;41:537–545.
11. Seymour J, Gott M, Bellamy G et al. Planning for the end of life: The views of older people about advance care statements. Soc Sci Med 2004;59:57–68.
12. Butow PN, Maclean M, Dunn SM et al. The dynamics of change: Cancer patients’ preferences for information, involvement and support. Ann Oncol 1997;8:857–863.
13. Winter L, Parker B. Current health and preferences for life-prolonging treatments: An application of prospect theory to end-of-life decision making. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:1695–1707.
14. Anderson WG, Kools S, Lyndon A. Dancing around death: Hospitalist-patient communication about serious illness. Qual Health Res 2013;23:3–13.
15. Heyland DK, Barwich D, Pichora D et al. Failure to engage hospitalized elderly patients and their families in advance care planning. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:778–787.
16. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006.
17. Corbin J, Strauss AL. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008.
18. Moss AH, Lunney JR, Culp S et al. Prognostic significance of the “surprise” question in cancer patients. J Palliat Med 2010;13:837–840.
19. Sudore RL, Landefeld CS, Williams BA et al. Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients: A descriptive study. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:867–873.
20. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ et al. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): A simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 1991;7:6–9.
21. Rosenfeld KE, Wenger NS, Kagawa-Singer M. End-of-life decision making: A qualitative study of elderly individuals. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:620–625.
22. Singer PA, Martin DK, Kelner M. Quality end-of-life care: Patients’ perspectives. J Am Med Assoc 1999;281:163–168.
23. Rotter JB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr 1966;80:1–28.
24. Wallhagen MI. Perceived control: A recontextualized perspective. J Clin Geropsychol 1998;4:119–140.
25. Astin JA, Anton-Culver H, Schwartz CE et al. Sense of control and adjustment to breast cancer: The importance of balancing control coping styles. Behav Med 1999;25:101–109.
26. Swainston K, Campbell C, van Wersch A et al. Treatment decision making in breast cancer: A longitudinal exploration of women's experiences. Br J Health Psychol 2012;17:155–170.
27. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: Revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:651–661.
28. Sulmasy DP, Snyder L. Substituted interests and best judgments: An integrated model of surrogate decision making. JAMA 2010;304:1946–1947.