Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Palliative Care 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

A mixed methods investigation of end-of-life surrogate decisions among older adults

Authors: Eleonore Batteux, Eamonn Ferguson, Richard J. Tunney

Published in: BMC Palliative Care | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A large number of end-of-life decisions are made by a next-of-kin for a patient who has lost their decision-making capacity. This has given rise to investigations into how surrogates make these decisions. The experimental perspective has focused on examining how the decisions we make for others differ from our own, whereas the qualitative perspective has explored surrogate insights into making these decisions.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods study to bring these two perspectives together. This is crucial to comparing decision outcomes to the decision process. We asked older adult partners to make end-of-life decisions for each other. They then took part in a semi-structured interview about their decision process. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

24 participants took part in the study. Surrogates were more likely to take a life-saving treatment at the risk of a diminished quality of life for their partner than for themselves. This was consistent with their transcripts which showed that they wanted to give their partner a better chance of living. Although there was evidence of surrogate inaccuracy in the decision task, participants overwhelmingly reported their intention to make a decision which aligns with the substituted judgment standard. However, uncertainty about their wishes pushed them to consider other factors.

Conclusions

Taking a mixed methods approach allowed us to make novel comparisons between decision outcome and process. We found that the intentions of surrogates broadly align with the expectations of the substituted judgment standard and that previous discussions with their partner helps them to make a decision.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The specific legislation regarding the conditions under which surrogate decision-making occurs and the procedure it follows varies from country to country, although similar ethical principles are applied in westernised countries.
 
2
According to a post hoc power (PHP) analysis, a sample of 22 participants was sufficient to detect an effect size of ηp2 = 0.317 with PHP > 0.95.
 
3
According to a post hoc power (PHP) analysis, a sample of 22 participants was sufficient to detect an effect size of ηp2 = 0.518 with PHP > 0.95.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Radwany S, Albanese T, Clough L, Sims L, Mason H, Jahangiri S. End-of-life decision making and emotional burden: placing family meetings in context. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2009;26(5):376–83.CrossRef Radwany S, Albanese T, Clough L, Sims L, Mason H, Jahangiri S. End-of-life decision making and emotional burden: placing family meetings in context. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2009;26(5):376–83.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Tunney R, Ziegler F. Toward a psychology of surrogate decision-making. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(6):880–5.CrossRef Tunney R, Ziegler F. Toward a psychology of surrogate decision-making. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(6):880–5.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Buchanan A, Brock DW. Deciding for others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.CrossRef Buchanan A, Brock DW. Deciding for others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Schenker Y, Crowley-Matoka M, Dohan D, Tiver GA, Arnold RM, White DB. I Don’t want to be the one saying ‘we should just let him die’: intrapersonal tensions experienced by surrogate decision makers in the ICU. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(12):1657–65.CrossRef Schenker Y, Crowley-Matoka M, Dohan D, Tiver GA, Arnold RM, White DB. I Don’t want to be the one saying ‘we should just let him die’: intrapersonal tensions experienced by surrogate decision makers in the ICU. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(12):1657–65.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Torke AM, Alexander GC, Lantos J. Substituted judgment: the limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(9):1514–7.CrossRef Torke AM, Alexander GC, Lantos J. Substituted judgment: the limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(9):1514–7.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference D. I. Shalowitz, E. Garrett-Mayer, and D. Wendler, “The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review”. Arch.Intern.Med., vol. 166, no. 0003–9926 (Print), pp. 493–497, 2006. D. I. Shalowitz, E. Garrett-Mayer, and D. Wendler, “The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review”. Arch.Intern.Med., vol. 166, no. 0003–9926 (Print), pp. 493–497, 2006.
7.
go back to reference Frey R, Hertwig R, Herzog SM. Surrogate decision making: do we have to trade off accuracy and procedural satisfaction? Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(2):258–69.CrossRef Frey R, Hertwig R, Herzog SM. Surrogate decision making: do we have to trade off accuracy and procedural satisfaction? Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(2):258–69.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Dionne-Odom JN, Willis DG, Bakitas M, Crandall B, Grace PJ. Conceptualizing surrogate decision making at end of life in the intensive care unit using cognitive task analysis. Nurs Outlook. 2015;63(3):331–40.CrossRef Dionne-Odom JN, Willis DG, Bakitas M, Crandall B, Grace PJ. Conceptualizing surrogate decision making at end of life in the intensive care unit using cognitive task analysis. Nurs Outlook. 2015;63(3):331–40.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Fetherstonhaugh D, McAuliffe L, Bauer M, Shanley C. Decision-making on behalf of people living with dementia: how do surrogate decision-makers decide? J Med Ethics. 2017;43(1):35–40.CrossRef Fetherstonhaugh D, McAuliffe L, Bauer M, Shanley C. Decision-making on behalf of people living with dementia: how do surrogate decision-makers decide? J Med Ethics. 2017;43(1):35–40.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Fritch J, Petronio S, Helft P, Torke A. Making decisions for hospitalized older adults: ethical factors considered by family surrogates. 2013;24(2):125–34. Fritch J, Petronio S, Helft P, Torke A. Making decisions for hospitalized older adults: ethical factors considered by family surrogates. 2013;24(2):125–34.
11.
go back to reference Vig EK, Taylor JS, Starks H, Hopley EK, Fryer-Edwards K. Beyond substituted judgment: how surrogates navigate end-of-life decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(11):1688–93.CrossRef Vig EK, Taylor JS, Starks H, Hopley EK, Fryer-Edwards K. Beyond substituted judgment: how surrogates navigate end-of-life decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(11):1688–93.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Raymark PH. Accepting or rejecting medical treatment: a comparison of decisions made for self versus those made for a significant other. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30(11):2409–36.CrossRef Raymark PH. Accepting or rejecting medical treatment: a comparison of decisions made for self versus those made for a significant other. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30(11):2409–36.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Fagerlin A, Danks JH, Ditto PH, Houts RM. Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatments. Health Psychol. 2001;20(3):166–75.CrossRef Fagerlin A, Danks JH, Ditto PH, Houts RM. Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatments. Health Psychol. 2001;20(3):166–75.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Batteux E, Ferguson E, Tunney RJ. Do our risk preferences change when we make decisions for others ? A meta-analysis of self-other differences in decisions involving risk. PLoS One. 2019:1–19. Batteux E, Ferguson E, Tunney RJ. Do our risk preferences change when we make decisions for others ? A meta-analysis of self-other differences in decisions involving risk. PLoS One. 2019:1–19.
15.
go back to reference C. D. Von Gunten and L. D. Scherer, “Self-other differences in multiattribute decision making: Compensatory versus noncompensatory decision strategies”. J. Behav. Decis. Mak., no. March 2017, pp. 1–15, 2018. C. D. Von Gunten and L. D. Scherer, “Self-other differences in multiattribute decision making: Compensatory versus noncompensatory decision strategies”. J. Behav. Decis. Mak., no. March 2017, pp. 1–15, 2018.
16.
go back to reference A. E. Carroll, C. Saha, S. Ofner, and S. M. Downs, “Valuing health for oneself versus one’s child or elderly parent,” J. Health Psychol., 2017. A. E. Carroll, C. Saha, S. Ofner, and S. M. Downs, “Valuing health for oneself versus one’s child or elderly parent,” J. Health Psychol., 2017.
17.
go back to reference Ubel PA, Angott AM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Physicians recommend different treatments for patients than they would choose for themselves. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):630–4.CrossRef Ubel PA, Angott AM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Physicians recommend different treatments for patients than they would choose for themselves. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):630–4.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. On defensive decision making: how doctors make decisions for their patients. Health Expect. 2012;17(5):664–9.CrossRef Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. On defensive decision making: how doctors make decisions for their patients. Health Expect. 2012;17(5):664–9.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Dore RA, Stone ER, Buchanan CM. A social values analysis of parental decision making. J Psychol. 2014;148(4):477–504.CrossRef Dore RA, Stone ER, Buchanan CM. A social values analysis of parental decision making. J Psychol. 2014;148(4):477–504.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Tang MY, Shahab L, Robb KA, Gardner B. Are parents more willing to vaccinate their children than themselves? J Health Psychol. 2016;21(5):781–7.CrossRef Tang MY, Shahab L, Robb KA, Gardner B. Are parents more willing to vaccinate their children than themselves? J Health Psychol. 2016;21(5):781–7.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Sarr B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P a. A matter of perspective: choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(6):618–22.CrossRef Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Sarr B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P a. A matter of perspective: choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(6):618–22.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Doc, what would you do if you were me? On self-other discrepancies in medical decision making. J Exp Psychol. 2012;18(1):38–51. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Doc, what would you do if you were me? On self-other discrepancies in medical decision making. J Exp Psychol. 2012;18(1):38–51.
23.
go back to reference E. Batteux, E. Ferguson, and R. J. Tunney, “Do we make decisions for other people based on our predictions of their preferences ? Evidence from financial and medical scenarios involving risk,” Think. Reason., 2019. E. Batteux, E. Ferguson, and R. J. Tunney, “Do we make decisions for other people based on our predictions of their preferences ? Evidence from financial and medical scenarios involving risk,” Think. Reason., 2019.
24.
go back to reference Stone ER, Choi Y, de Bruin WB, Mandel DR. I can take the risk, but you should be safe: self-other differences in situations involving physical safety. Judgm Decis Mak. 2013;8(3):250–67. Stone ER, Choi Y, de Bruin WB, Mandel DR. I can take the risk, but you should be safe: self-other differences in situations involving physical safety. Judgm Decis Mak. 2013;8(3):250–67.
25.
go back to reference Loewenstein G. Hot – cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4):49–56.CrossRef Loewenstein G. Hot – cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4):49–56.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risks as Feelings. Psychol Bull. 2001;127(2):267–86.CrossRef Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risks as Feelings. Psychol Bull. 2001;127(2):267–86.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Trope Y, Liberman N. Constual-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev. 2010;117(2):440–63.CrossRef Trope Y, Liberman N. Constual-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev. 2010;117(2):440–63.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Stone ER, Allgaier L. A social values analysis of self-other differences in decision making involving risk. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2008;30(2):114–29.CrossRef Stone ER, Allgaier L. A social values analysis of self-other differences in decision making involving risk. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2008;30(2):114–29.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Feilzer MY. Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J Mix Methods Res. 2010;4(1):6–16.CrossRef Feilzer MY. Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J Mix Methods Res. 2010;4(1):6–16.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1989;11(3):255–74.CrossRef Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1989;11(3):255–74.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Fried TR, Bradley EH, Towle VR. Assessment of patient preferences: integrating treatments and outcomes. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002;57(6):S348–54. Fried TR, Bradley EH, Towle VR. Assessment of patient preferences: integrating treatments and outcomes. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002;57(6):S348–54.
32.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*power: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.CrossRef Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*power: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A mixed methods investigation of end-of-life surrogate decisions among older adults
Authors
Eleonore Batteux
Eamonn Ferguson
Richard J. Tunney
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Palliative Care / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-684X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00553-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Palliative Care 1/2020 Go to the issue