Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 495–501 | Cite as

Changes in Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatment Among Older Persons with Advanced Illness

  • Terri R. Fried
  • Peter H. Van Ness
  • Amy L. Byers
  • Virginia R. Towle
  • John R. O’Leary
  • Joel A. Dubin
Original Article



There are conflicting assumptions regarding how patients’ preferences for life-sustaining treatment change over the course of serious illness.


To examine changes in treatment preferences over time.


Longitudinal cohort study with 2-year follow-up.


Two hundred twenty-six community-dwelling persons age ≥60 years with advanced cancer, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.


Participants were asked, if faced with an illness exacerbation that would be fatal if untreated, whether they would: a) undergo high-burden treatment at a given likelihood of death and b) undergo low-burden treatment at a given likelihood of severe disability, versus a return to current health.


There was little change in the overall proportions of participants who would undergo therapy at a given likelihood of death or disability from first to final interview. Diversity within the population regarding the highest likelihood of death or disability at which the individual would undergo therapy remained substantial over time. Despite a small magnitude of change, the odds of participants’ willingness to undergo high-burden therapy at a given likelihood of death and to undergo low-burden therapy at a given likelihood of severe cognitive disability decreased significantly over time. Greater functional disability, poorer quality of life, and lower self-rated life expectancy were associated with decreased willingness to undergo therapy.


Diversity among older persons with advanced illness regarding treatment preferences persists over time. Although the magnitude of change is small, there is a decreased willingness to undergo highly burdensome therapy or to risk severe disability in order to avoid death over time and with declining health status.


life support care decision-making chronic disease 


  1. 1.
    Christakis NA, Escarce JJ. Survival of Medicare patients after enrollment in hospice programs. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:172–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meier DE, Morrison RS. Autonomy reconsidered. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1087–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Finucane TE. How gravely ill becomes dying: a key to end-of-life care. JAMA. 1999;282:1670–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Danis M, Garrett J, Harris R, Patrick DL. Stability of choices about life-sustaining treatments. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:567–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Straton JB, Wang NY, Meoni LA, et al. Physical functioning, depression, and preferences for treatment at the end of life: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:577–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Everhart MA, Pearlman RA. Stability of patient preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments. Chest. 1990;97:159–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Silverstein MD, Stocking CB, Antel JP, Beckwith J, Roos RP, Siegler M. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and life-sustaining therapy: patients’ desires for information, participation in decision making, and life-sustaining therapy. Mayo Clin Proc. 1991;66:906–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weissman JS, Haas JS, Fowler FJ, Jr., et al. The stability of preferences for life-sustaining care among persons with AIDS in the Boston Health Study. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:16–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ditto PH, Smucker WD, Danks JH, et al. Stability of older adults’ preferences for life-sustaining medical treatment. Health Psychol. 2003;22:605–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosenfeld KE, Wenger NS, Phillips RS, et al. Factors associated with change in resuscitation preference of seriously ill patients. The SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1558–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenfeld KE, Wenger NS, Kagawa-Singer M. End-of-life decision making: a qualitative study of elderly individuals. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:620–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fried TR, Bradley EH. What matters to older seriously ill persons making treatment decisions? A qualitative study. J Pall Med. 2003;6:237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murphy DJ, Burrows D, Santilli S, et al. The influence of the probability of survival on patients’ preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:545–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fried TR, Byers AL, Gallo WT, et al. Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:890–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Connecticut Hospice Inc. Summary Guidelines for Initiation of Advanced Care. Branford, CT: John Thompson Institute; 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murphy DJ, Knaus WA, Lynn J. Study population in SUPPORT: patients (as defined by disease categories and mortality projections), surrogates, and physicians. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:11S–28S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Inouye SK, Peduzzi PN, Robison JT, Hughes JS, Horwitz RI, Concato J. Importance of functional measures in predicting mortality among older hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998;279:1187–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23:433–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Royall DR, Mahurin RK, Gray KF. Bedside assessment of executive cognitive impairment: the executive interview. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40:1221–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185:914–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pearlin LI, Lieberman MA, Menaghan EG, Mullan JT. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav. 1981;22:337–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Whooley MA, Avins AL, Miranda J, Browner WS. Case-finding instruments for depression. Two questions are as good as many. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:439–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fried TR, Bradley EH, Towle VR. Assessment of patient preferences: Integrating treatments and outcomes. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002;57:S348–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Danis M, Mutran E, Garrett JM, et al. A prospective study of the impact of patient preferences on life-sustaining treatment and hospital cost. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:1811–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pearlman RA, Cain KC, Patrick DL, et al. Insights pertaining to patient assessments of states worse than death. J Clin Ethics. 1993;4:33–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dales RE, O’Connor A, Hebert P, Sullivan K, McKim D, Llewellyn-Thomas H. Intubation and mechanical ventilation for COPD: development of an instrument to elicit patient preferences. Chest. 1999;116:792–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsevat J, Dawson NV, Wu AW, et al. Health values of hospitalized patients 80 years or older. HELP Investigators. Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project. JAMA. 1998;279:371–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Puhan MA, Guyatt GH, Montori VM, et al. The standard gamble demonstrated lower reliability than the feeling thermometer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:458–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Souchek J, Stacks JR, Brody B, et al. A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit. Med Care. Oct 2000;38:1040–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bravata DM, Nelson LM, Garber AM, Goldstein MK. Invariance and inconsistency in utility ratings. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:158–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Llewellyn-Thomas HA. Investigating patients’ preferences for different treatment options. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29:45–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1989;9:142–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Breslow NE, Clayton DG. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCulloch CE, Searle SR. Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dos Santos DM, Berridge DM. A continuation ratio random effects model for repeated ordinal responses. Stat Med. 2000;19:3377–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    SAS Software System. Version 9.1. In. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2000.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pearlman RA, Starks HE, Cain KC, Cole WG, Patrick DL, Uhlmann RF. Integrating preferences for life-sustaining treatments and health state ratings into meaningful advance care discussions. In: van der Heide A, Onwuteaka–Philipsen B, Emanuel EJ, van der Maas PJ, van der Wal G, eds. Clinical and Epidemiological Aspects of End-of-Life Decision-Making. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; 2001.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1507–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    National Institutes of Health. State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Improving End-of-Life Care. Bethesda, M.D.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2004.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Blackhall LJ, Frank G, Murphy ST, Michel V, Palmer JM, Azen SP. Ethnicity and attitudes towards life sustaining technology. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1779–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Borum ML, Lynn J, Zhong Z. The effects of patient race on outcomes in seriously ill patients in SUPPORT: an overview of economic impact, medical intervention, and end-of-life decisions. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:S194–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shrank WH, Kutner JS, Richardson T, Mularski RA, Fischer S, Kagawa-Singer M. Focus group findings about the influence of culture on communication preferences in end-of-life care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:703–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Singer PA, Martin DK, Kelner M. Quality end-of-life care: patients’ perspectives. JAMA. 1999;281:163–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ditto PH, Druley JA, Moore KA, Danks JH, Smucker WD. Fates worse than death: the role of valued life activities in health-state evaluations. Health Psychol. 1996;15:332–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fried TR, van Doorn C, O’Leary JR, Tinetti ME, Drickamer MA. Older persons’ preferences for site of terminal care. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:109–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fagerlin A, Schneider CE. Enough. The failure of the living will. Hastings Cent Rep. 2004;34:30–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terri R. Fried
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter H. Van Ness
    • 3
    • 4
  • Amy L. Byers
    • 5
  • Virginia R. Towle
    • 4
  • John R. O’Leary
    • 4
  • Joel A. Dubin
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Clinical Epidemiology Research CenterVA Connecticut Healthcare SystemWest HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and Public HealthYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.Program on AgingYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  5. 5.Department of Geriatric PsychiatryWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of Statistics and Actuarial ScienceUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  7. 7.Department of Health Studies and GerontologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations