Quality of life of persons living with HIV and congruence with surrogate decision-makers
Physicians and caregivers rate patient quality of life (QOL) lower than patients rate their own QOL. This study investigated discrepancies between self-assessments of patient QOL by adults with HIV and their surrogate decision-makers.
We collected baseline data from 223 adult dyads in the FAmily-CEntered (FACE) Advance Care Planning (ACP) clinical trial, consisting of HIV positive patients and their chosen surrogates. Participants independently completed the Medical Outcome Study-HIV Survey (MOS-HIV) and the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS). We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test to assess differences in overall patient–surrogate means. We used Prevalence Adjusted Bias Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) statistics to assess dyadic agreement, with surrogate HIV status and cohabitation status as grouping variables.
Patients were 56.1% male, 86.1% Black/African-American, aged 22–77 (mean = 50.83, SD = ± 12.33). Surrogates were 43.8% male, 84.1% Black/African-American, aged 18–82 (mean = 49.73, SD = ± 14.22). 46.2% of surrogates lived with the patient. 64.6% of surrogates reported negative HIV status. Surrogates were more likely to state patients were ill, p = 0.032. Among patient–surrogate dyads, most QOL assessments showed poor (0.00–0.39) or fair (0.40–0.59) agreement and agreement tended to be even poorer among patient–surrogate dyads where the surrogate had a shared HIV diagnosis.
QOL discrepancies are said to arise from healthy surrogates overestimating the effects of chronic illness. In this novel assessment, many surrogates had a shared HIV diagnosis, without increased agreement. These findings highlight the challenge of accurately assessing patient QOL by surrogates, even when there is a shared HIV diagnosis. Improved communication is needed between patients and surrogates about the patients’ representation of illness.
National Clinical Trial Number: NCT01775436.
KeywordsHIV/AIDS Health-related quality of life Caregivers Medical decision-making Advance care planning Disability paradox
We thank the study participants for their contributions to the success of this study.
This research is supported by the National Institute of Nursing Research at the National Institute of Health Award Number R01NR014-052-05; National Institute of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences CTSI-CN UL1RR031988. These institutions were not involved in the present analysis, the interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit for publication. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Nursing Research or the National Institute of Health.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest to report.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This research was approved by the IRB at Children’s National (coordinating center) and at all participating study sites. The Children’s National Medical Center IRB’s Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) number is FWA00004487. The institutional organization number is IORG0000245.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Schouten, J., Ferdinand, W. W., Stolte, I. G., Kootstra, N., van der Valk, M., & Geerlings, S. G. (2014). Cross-sectional comparison of the prevalence of age-associated comorbidities and their risk factors between HIV-infected and uninfected individuals: The AGE IV cohort study. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu701.Google Scholar
- 15.Lee, C. C., Czaja, S. J., & Schulz, R. (2010). The moderating influence of demographic characteristics, social support, and religious coping on the effectiveness of a multicomponent psychosocial caregiver intervention in three racial ethnic groups. Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 65B(2),185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Wissow, L. S., Hutton, N., & Kass, N. (2001). Preliminary study of a values-history advance directive interview in a pediatric HIV clinic. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 12(2), 161–172.Google Scholar
- 22.Hammes, B. J., & Briggs, L. (2007). Respecting choices: Advance care planning facilitator manual-revised. La Crosse: Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation.Google Scholar
- 25.Kimmel, A. L., Wang, J., Scott, R., Briggs, L., & Lyon, M. E. (2015). FAmily CEntered (FACE) advance care planning: Study design and methods for a patient-centered communication and decision-making intervention for patients with HIV/AIDS and their surrogate decision-makers. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 43(1), 172–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Aspinal, F., Hughes, R., Higginson, I., Chidgey, J., Drescher, U., & Thompson, M. (2002). A user’s guide to the Palliative care Outcome Scale (p. 10). London: Palliative Care and Policy Publications.Google Scholar
- 29.SAS Institute Inc. (2008). SAS® 9.2 enhanced logging facilities. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
- 32.Graham, C. D., Weinman, J., Sadjadi, R., Chalder, T., Petty, R., & Hanna, M. G. (2014). A multicentre postal survey investigating the contribution of illness perceptions, coping and optimism to quality of life and mood in adults with muscle disease. Clinical Rehabilitation, 28(5), 508–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Lyon, M. E., Squires, L., D’Angelo, L., Benator, D., Scott, R., Tanjutco, P., et al. (2017, September 6–8). Advance care planning needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Washington, DC: A racial comparison. In Poster 6th international advance care planning end of life conference, Banff, Alberta.Google Scholar
- 37.Song, M. K., Ward, S. E., Denne, H., Happ, M. B., Piraino, B., Donovan, H. S., et al. (2009). Randomized controlled trial of SPIRIT: An effective approach to preparing African-American dialysis patients and families for end-of-life. Research in Nursing & Health, 32(3), 260–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar