title: Validation of preferences for life-sustaining treatment: implications for advance care planning.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Treatment preferences established before life-threatening Illness occurs may differ from actual decisions because of changes in preferences or poor understanding of the link between prospective preferences and outcomes.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the validity of prospective treatment preferences by examining their concordance with ratings of health states.
  
  
  METHODS
  Survey of seven cohorts of persons with diverse health status. Home- and hospital-based interviews were conducted at baseline and at 6, 18, and 30 months.
  
  
  METHODS
  The greater Seattle area.
  
  
  METHODS
  Younger and older well adults; persons with chronic conditions, terminal cancer, or AIDS; stroke survivors; and nursing home residents.
  
  
  METHODS
  Concordance between six treatment preferences and five health state ratings (on a seven-point scale) was assessed by using logistic regression to measure the increase in odds of treatment refusal for each one-point change in health state rating. Preferences were considered concordant if treatments were refused in health states rated as worse than death and were accepted in health states rated as better than death. Reasons for discordance were elicited at the final interview.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The probability of refusal of prospective treatment was strongly related to health state ratings. Odds ratios ranged from 1.7 to 1.9 (P < 0.001) for every treatment. When patients were shown their discordant preferences, they had a coherent explanation or changed their health state rating or treatment preference to make the two concordant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Prospective life-sustaining treatment preferences show high convergent validity. For most persons, treatment preferences are grounded in a consistent belief system. Concordance and discordance between treatment preferences and health state ratings offer clinicians the opportunity to explore patients' values and reasoning.
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7660, USA.
authors.forename: D L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Patrick
authors.forename: R A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Pearlman
authors.forename: H E
authors.initials: HE
authors.lastname: Starks
authors.forename: K C
authors.initials: KC
authors.lastname: Cain
authors.forename: W G
authors.initials: WG
authors.lastname: Cole
authors.forename: R F
authors.initials: RF
authors.lastname: Uhlmann
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D016223:Advance Directives; D000368:Aged; D002908:Chronic Disease / Q000523:psychology; D016638:Critical Illness / Q000523:psychology; D003657:Decision Making; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006304:Health Status; D006801:Humans; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D008020:Life Support Care; D016015:Logistic Models; D008875:Middle Aged; D016017:Odds Ratio; D011788:Quality of Life; D016312:Treatment Refusal