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

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Factors underlying surrogate medical decision-making in middle eastern and east Asian women: a Q-methodology study

Authors: Muhammad M. Hammami, Areej Al Balkhi, Sophia S. De Padua, Kafa Abuhdeeb

Published in: BMC Palliative Care | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

It is not clear how lay people prioritize the various, sometimes conflicting, interests when they make surrogate medical decisions, especially in non-Western cultures. The extent such decisions are perspective-related is also not well documented.

Methods

We explored the relative importance of 28 surrogate decision-making factors to 120 Middle-Eastern (ME) and 120 East-Asian (EA) women from three perspectives, norm-perception (N), preference as patient (P), and preference as surrogate decision-maker (S). Each respondent force-ranked (one to nine) 28 opinion-items according to each perspective. Items’ ranks were analyzed by averaging-analysis and Q-methodology.

Results

Respondents’ mean (SD) age was 33.2 (7.9) years; all ME were Muslims, 83% of EA were Christians. “Trying everything possible to save patient,” “Improving patient health,” “Patient pain and suffering,” and/or “What is in the best interests of patient” were the three most-important items, whereas “Effect of caring for patient on all patients in society,” “Effect of caring for patient on patients with same disease,” and/or “Cost to society from caring for patient” were among the three least-important items, in each ME and EA perspectives. P-perspective assigned higher mean ranks to family and surrogate’s needs and burdens-related items, and lower mean rank to “Fear of loss” than S-perspective (p<0.001). ME assigned higher mean ranks to “Medical facts” and “Surrogate own wishes for patient” and lower mean rank to “Family needs” in all perspectives (p<0.001). Q-methodology identified models that were relatively patient’s preference-, patient’s religious/spiritual beliefs-, or emotion-dependent (all perspectives); medical facts-dependent (N- and S-perspectives), financial needs-dependent (P- and S-perspectives), and family needs-dependent (P-perspective).

Conclusions

1) Patient’s health was more important than patient’s preference to ME and EA women; society interest was least important. 2) Family and surrogate’s needs/ burdens were more important, whereas fear of loss was less important to respondents as patients than as surrogate decision-makers. 3) Family needs were more important to EA than ME respondents, the opposite was true for medical facts and surrogate’s wishes for patient. 4) Q-methodology models that relatively emphasized various surrogate decision-making factors overlapped the ME and EA women’ three perspectives.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Proxy decision making for incompetent patients: an ethical and empirical analysis. JAMA. 1992;267:2067–71.CrossRef Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Proxy decision making for incompetent patients: an ethical and empirical analysis. JAMA. 1992;267:2067–71.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Combs MP, Rasinski KA, Yoon JD, Curlin FA. Substituted judgment in principle and practice: a national physician survey. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(7):666–73.CrossRef Combs MP, Rasinski KA, Yoon JD, Curlin FA. Substituted judgment in principle and practice: a national physician survey. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(7):666–73.CrossRef
3.
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
4.
go back to reference Pruchno RA, Lemay EP Jr, Feild L, Levinsky NG. Spouse as health care proxy for dialysis patients: whose preferences matter? Gerontologist. 2005;45(6):812–9.CrossRef Pruchno RA, Lemay EP Jr, Feild L, Levinsky NG. Spouse as health care proxy for dialysis patients: whose preferences matter? Gerontologist. 2005;45(6):812–9.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Fritch J, Petronio S, Helft PR, Torke A. Making decisions for hospitalized older adults: ethical factors considered by family surrogates. J Clin Ethics. 2013;24(2):125–34.PubMedCentral Fritch J, Petronio S, Helft PR, Torke A. Making decisions for hospitalized older adults: ethical factors considered by family surrogates. J Clin Ethics. 2013;24(2):125–34.PubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Devnani R, Slaven JE Jr, Bosslet GT, Montz K, Inger L, Burke ES, Torke AM. How surrogates decide: a secondary data analysis of decision-making principles used by the surrogates of hospitalized adults. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(12):1285–93.CrossRef Devnani R, Slaven JE Jr, Bosslet GT, Montz K, Inger L, Burke ES, Torke AM. How surrogates decide: a secondary data analysis of decision-making principles used by the surrogates of hospitalized adults. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(12):1285–93.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tsinorema S. The principle of autonomy and the ethics of advance directives. Synthesis Philosoph. 2015;59:73–88. Tsinorema S. The principle of autonomy and the ethics of advance directives. Synthesis Philosoph. 2015;59:73–88.
8.
go back to reference Davis JK. Precedent autonomy and subsequent consent. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 2004;7:267–91.CrossRef Davis JK. Precedent autonomy and subsequent consent. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 2004;7:267–91.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Torke AM, Alexander GC, Lantos J. Substituted judgment: the limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making. J Gen Inten 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 Inten Med. 2008;23(9):1514–7.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sussman B. A narrative approach to the ethical dilemmas of surrogate decision making. Prog Palliat Care. 2015;3:137–41.CrossRef Sussman B. A narrative approach to the ethical dilemmas of surrogate decision making. Prog Palliat Care. 2015;3:137–41.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Blustein J. Choosing for others as continuing a life story: the problem of personal identity revisited. J Law Med Ethics. 1999;27:20–31.CrossRef Blustein J. Choosing for others as continuing a life story: the problem of personal identity revisited. J Law Med Ethics. 1999;27:20–31.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Kuczewski MG. Commentary: narrative views of personal identity and substituted judgment in surrogate decision making. J Law Med Ethics. 1999;27:32–6.CrossRef Kuczewski MG. Commentary: narrative views of personal identity and substituted judgment in surrogate decision making. J Law Med Ethics. 1999;27:32–6.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Sulmasy DP, Snyder L. Substituted interests and best judgments. An integrated model of surrogate decision making. JAMA. 2010;304(17):1946–9.CrossRef Sulmasy DP, Snyder L. Substituted interests and best judgments. An integrated model of surrogate decision making. JAMA. 2010;304(17):1946–9.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Phillips J, Wendler D. Clarifying substituted judgment: the endorsed life approach. J Med Ethics. 2015;41:723–30.CrossRef Phillips J, Wendler D. Clarifying substituted judgment: the endorsed life approach. J Med Ethics. 2015;41:723–30.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Brudney D. Choosing for another: beyond autonomy and best interests. Hast Cent Rep. 2009;39(2):31–7.CrossRef Brudney D. Choosing for another: beyond autonomy and best interests. Hast Cent Rep. 2009;39(2):31–7.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Chan HM. Sharing death and dying: advance directives, autonomy and the family. Bioethics. 2004;18(2):87–103.CrossRef Chan HM. Sharing death and dying: advance directives, autonomy and the family. Bioethics. 2004;18(2):87–103.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Nagai H. Blood ties and trust: a comparative history of policy on family consent in Japan and the United States. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2017;34:226–38.CrossRef Nagai H. Blood ties and trust: a comparative history of policy on family consent in Japan and the United States. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2017;34:226–38.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Meeker MA. Family surrogate decision making at the end of life: seeing them through with care and respect. Qual Health Res. 2004;14(2):204–25.CrossRef Meeker MA. Family surrogate decision making at the end of life: seeing them through with care and respect. Qual Health Res. 2004;14(2):204–25.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Stonestreet EL. Love as a regulative ideal in surrogate decision making. J Med Philos. 2014;39(5):523–42.CrossRef Stonestreet EL. Love as a regulative ideal in surrogate decision making. J Med Philos. 2014;39(5):523–42.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. How should treatment decisions be made for incapacitated patients, and why? PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):0423–8.CrossRef Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. How should treatment decisions be made for incapacitated patients, and why? PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):0423–8.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hammami MM, Al Gaai E, Hammami S, Attala S. Exploring end of life priorities in Saudi males: usefulness of Q-methodology. BMC Palliat Care. 2015;14:66.CrossRef Hammami MM, Al Gaai E, Hammami S, Attala S. Exploring end of life priorities in Saudi males: usefulness of Q-methodology. BMC Palliat Care. 2015;14:66.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hammami MM, Hammami S, Amer H, Khodr NA. Typology of end-of-life priorities in Saudi females: averaging analysis and Q-methodology. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:781–94.CrossRef Hammami MM, Hammami S, Amer H, Khodr NA. Typology of end-of-life priorities in Saudi females: averaging analysis and Q-methodology. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:781–94.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Cohen CJ, Chen Y, Orbach H, Freier-Dror Y, Auslander G, Breuer GS. Social values as an independent factor affecting end of life medical decision making. Med Health Care Philos. 2015;18(1):71–80.CrossRef Cohen CJ, Chen Y, Orbach H, Freier-Dror Y, Auslander G, Breuer GS. Social values as an independent factor affecting end of life medical decision making. Med Health Care Philos. 2015;18(1):71–80.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Meeker MA, Jezewski MA. Family decision making at end of life. Palliat Support Care. 2005;3(2):131–42.CrossRef Meeker MA, Jezewski MA. Family decision making at end of life. Palliat Support Care. 2005;3(2):131–42.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers. A systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:493–7.CrossRef Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers. A systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:493–7.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Song MK, Ward SE, Lin FC. End-of-life decision-making confidence in surrogates of African-American dialysis patient is overly optimistic. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(4):412–7.CrossRef Song MK, Ward SE, Lin FC. End-of-life decision-making confidence in surrogates of African-American dialysis patient is overly optimistic. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(4):412–7.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Sharma RK, Hughes MT, Nolan MT, Tudor C, Kub J, Terry PB, Sulmasy DP. Family understanding of seriously-ill patient preferences for family involvement in healthcare decision making. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(8):881–6.CrossRef Sharma RK, Hughes MT, Nolan MT, Tudor C, Kub J, Terry PB, Sulmasy DP. Family understanding of seriously-ill patient preferences for family involvement in healthcare decision making. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(8):881–6.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Mayer PA, Esplin B, Burant CJ, Wilson BM, Krall ML, Daly BJ, Gatliff J. Characteristics of completed comprehensive advance directives at a veterans affairs medical center. A J Hosp Palliat Care. 2017;34(2):160–5.CrossRef Mayer PA, Esplin B, Burant CJ, Wilson BM, Krall ML, Daly BJ, Gatliff J. Characteristics of completed comprehensive advance directives at a veterans affairs medical center. A J Hosp Palliat Care. 2017;34(2):160–5.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Hammami S, Farah FA, Hammami MM. Surrogate end-of-life decisions: projection or simulation. Gen Med. 2016;4(3):1000247.CrossRef Hammami S, Farah FA, Hammami MM. Surrogate end-of-life decisions: projection or simulation. Gen Med. 2016;4(3):1000247.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Downey L, Engelberg RA, Curtis JR, Lafferty WE, Patrick DL. Shared priorities for the end-of-life period. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2009;37:175–88.CrossRef Downey L, Engelberg RA, Curtis JR, Lafferty WE, Patrick DL. Shared priorities for the end-of-life period. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2009;37:175–88.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Thomas DM, Watson RT. Q-sorting and MIS research: a primer. Comm Assoc Info Syst. 2002;8:141–56. Thomas DM, Watson RT. Q-sorting and MIS research: a primer. Comm Assoc Info Syst. 2002;8:141–56.
34.
go back to reference Hammami MM, Hammami S, Aboushaar R, Aljomah AS. Lay People's ethical attitudes to placebo treatment: a Q-methodology study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1599–617.CrossRef Hammami MM, Hammami S, Aboushaar R, Aljomah AS. Lay People's ethical attitudes to placebo treatment: a Q-methodology study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1599–617.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Hammami MM, Hammami MB, Aboushaar R. Modeling lay People’s ethical attitudes to organ donation: a Q-methodology study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:173–89.CrossRef Hammami MM, Hammami MB, Aboushaar R. Modeling lay People’s ethical attitudes to organ donation: a Q-methodology study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:173–89.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek B. Liberals and conservatives rely on different moral foundations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;96(5):1029–46.CrossRef Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek B. Liberals and conservatives rely on different moral foundations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;96(5):1029–46.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Libbus MK, Russell C. Congruence of decisions between patients and their potential surrogates about life-sustaining therapies. Image J Nurs Sch. 1995;27(2):135–40.CrossRef Libbus MK, Russell C. Congruence of decisions between patients and their potential surrogates about life-sustaining therapies. Image J Nurs Sch. 1995;27(2):135–40.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Fried TR, Bradley EH, Towle VR. Valuing the outcomes of treatment. Do patients and their caregivers agree? Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2073–8.CrossRef Fried TR, Bradley EH, Towle VR. Valuing the outcomes of treatment. Do patients and their caregivers agree? Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2073–8.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Perkins HS, Cortez MA, Hazuda HP. Substituted judgment. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;24(1):144.CrossRef Perkins HS, Cortez MA, Hazuda HP. Substituted judgment. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;24(1):144.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Factors underlying surrogate medical decision-making in middle eastern and east Asian women: a Q-methodology study
Authors
Muhammad M. Hammami
Areej Al Balkhi
Sophia S. De Padua
Kafa Abuhdeeb
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/s12904-020-00643-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Palliative Care 1/2020 Go to the issue