Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 7, pp 1007–1010 | Cite as

The Influence of Default Options on the Expression of End-of-Life Treatment Preferences in Advance Directives

  • Laura M. Kressel
  • Gretchen B. Chapman
  • Elaine Leventhal
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Advance directives promise to preserve patient autonomy, but research indicates that end-of-life preferences can be influenced by the way in which questions are posed.

Objective

To determine whether preferences expressed by geriatric patients on advance directives are influenced by the default response inherent in the question.

Design

Mailed survey containing 1 of 3 versions of an advance directive.

Setting

General internal medicine outpatient medical practice.

Participants

Outpatients aged 65 or older (n = 106, response rate = 27%).

Interventions

In the “withhold” version of the survey, participants indicated situations where they would want treatments withheld (i.e., the default preference was in favor of treatment). In the “provide” version, participants indicated situations where they would want treatment provided (i.e., the default preference was against treatment). In the forced-choice control version, participants made an explicit decision to withhold or provide treatment for each situation.

Main Outcome Measure

Participants’ treatment preferences.

Results

Preferences differed by condition, F(2, 103) = 3.61, MSE = 0.09, η 2 = .07, p = .03. Participants tended to express the default preference, and thus, were more likely to favor treatment in the “withhold” condition than in the “provide” condition. Preferences in the forced-choice control condition were intermediate.

Conclusions

The default inherent in a question can impact preferences for medical treatment. This default effect limits the utility of advance directives.

KEY WORDS

end-of-life preferences defaults advance directives 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NSF award SES-03-25080 to the second author. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. A preliminary report of these results appeared as a poster presentation at the November 2006 annual meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making in Houston, TX.

Conflicts of Interest

None disclosed.

References

  1. 1.
    Ditto PH, Hawkins NA. Advance directives and cancer decision making near the end of life. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4):S63–S70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fagerlin A, Schneider CE. Enough: the failure of the living will. Hastings Cent Rep. 2004;34(2):30–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ditto PH, Danks JH, Smucker WD, et al. Advance directives as acts of communication. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(3):421–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coppola KM, Ditto PH, Danks JH, et al. Accuracy of primary care and hospital-based physicians’ predictions of elderly outpatients’ treatment preferences with and without advance directives. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(3):431–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson EJ, Goldstein D. Do defaults save lives? Science. 2003;302(5649):1338–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson EJ, Steffel M, Goldstein D. Making better decisions: from measuring to constructing preferences. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4):S17–S22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Redelmeier DA, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA. 1995;273(4):302–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. The Adaptive Decision Maker. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kressel LM, Chapman GB. Default effects in end of life treatment preferences. Med Decis Making. In press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Madrian BC, Shea DF. The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ. 2001;116(4):1149–525.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schweitzer M. Disentangling status quo and omission effects: an experimental analysis. Org Behav Human Decis Process. 1994;58:457–76.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKenzie CR, Liersch MJ, Finkelstein SR. Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(5):414–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura M. Kressel
    • 1
  • Gretchen B. Chapman
    • 2
  • Elaine Leventhal
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  3. 3.Department of Internal Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolUniversity of Medicine and Dentistry of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations