Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
Objective: This study aimed to analyse older people`s end-of-life care priorities and to identify factors associated with these priorities.
Methods: We asked 400 people aged 60 years or older living in Belo Horizonte, Brazil their treatment priorities if faced with a serious illness with limited time to live. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify the associated factors.
Results: Most participants (65.3%) chose the option ‘improve quality of life for the time they had left’. Only 4% said extending life was the most important priority while the option ‘both equally important’ (quality and extension) was chosen by 30.8 of respondents. Participants in the age group 60-69 years were more likely to choose both quality and life extension than choose to extend life alone (AOR=0.18, 95% CI:0.05-0.72; ref: 80+ years). The group comprised of single + widowers is more likely to prioritize both quality and extension than to prioritize just extending life (AOR=0.28, 95% CI:0.09-0.89; ref: the others marital status) and or just improving the quality of life (AOR=0.62, 95% CI:0.40-0.95; ref: the others marital status).
Conclusion: The findings indicated that treatment for improving the quality of life was the most important priority. Two factors influenced the priorities (age group and marital status). To meet people's treatment priorities at end of life policies need to be formulated to develop palliative care services, train health-care professionals and educate patients.
Copyright (c) 2020 Rafaela Jorge, Adelaide Freitas, Liliana Sousa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
When submitting an article to the Journal of Statistics on Health Decision (JSHD), authors certify the following clauses:
- Originality and single submission – The contents presented in the article have not been published previously in whole or in part, and were not submitted or are not under active consideration elsewhere prior JSHD decision. The article is authentic and does not contain plagiarism.
- Authorship – All authors reviewed the article, agreed with its content, and agreed to its submission to the JSHD. All the authorship criteria stated by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Guidelines were met.
- Conflicts of interest – Any conflict of interests were declared. If authors have no declaration, it should be written (in the acknowledgements section): “The authors declare no conflict of interests”.
- Ethics committee and informed consent (if applicable) – The current research was approved by an independent ethics committee and subjects gave their informed consent before they were enrolled in the study.
- And authors agree to the Open Access license agreement of the Journal of Statistics on Health Decision, stated bellow.