Family factors in end-of-life decision-making: family conflict and proxy relationship.
BACKGROUND
Few studies have examined proxy decision-making regarding end-of-life treatment decisions. Proxy accuracy is defined as whether proxy treatment choices are consistent with the expressed wishes of their index elder. The purpose of this study was to examine proxy accuracy in relation to two family factors that may influence proxy accuracy: perceived family conflict and type of elder-proxy relationship.


METHODS
Telephone interviews with 202 community-dwelling elders and their proxy decision makers were conducted including the Life-Support Preferences Questionnaire (LSPQ), and a measure of family conflict, and sociodemographic characteristics, including type of relationship.


RESULTS
Elder-proxy accuracy was associated with the type of elder-proxy relationship. Adult children demonstrated the lowest elder-proxy accuracy and spousal proxies the highest elder-proxy accuracy. Elder-proxy accuracy was associated with family conflict. Proxies reporting higher family conflict had lower elder-proxy accuracy. No interaction between family conflict and relationship type was revealed.


CONCLUSIONS
Spousal proxies were more accurate in their substituted judgment than adult children, and proxies who perceive higher degree of family conflict tended to be less accurate than those with lower family conflict. Health care providers should be aware of these family factors when discussing advance care planning.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. susan.parks@jefferson.edu
Susan Mockus
SM
Parks
Laraine
L
Winter
Abbie J
AJ
Santana
Barbara
B
Parker
James J
JJ
Diamond
Molly
M
Rose
Ronald E
RE
Myers
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003220:Conflict, Psychological; D003657:Decision Making; D005195:Family Relations; D006801:Humans; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D008875:Middle Aged; D019727:Proxy; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013727:Terminal Care
J Palliat Med. 2005 Apr;8(2):418-31
15890053
J Law Med Ethics. 1999 Spring;27(1):52-68
11657144
Health Psychol. 2001 May;20(3):166-75
11403214
Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2009;69(1):31-54
19803339
JAMA. 1995 Nov 22-29;274(20):1591-8
7474243
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Mar 13;166(5):493-7
16534034
Death Stud. 1999 Oct-Nov;23(7):617-34
10915454
J Palliat Med. 2008 Oct;11(8):1109-14
18980451
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Feb;55(2):189-94
17302654
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 May;16(5):283-9
11359545
Nurs Ethics. 2009 Jan;16(1):93-109
19103694
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Apr;60(7):1459-65
15652679
Ann Intern Med. 1991 Jul 15;115(2):92-8
2058868
J Palliat Med. 2004 Oct;7(5):611-27
15588352
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992 Jul;40(7):697-702
1607586
Med Decis Making. 2000 Jul-Sep;20(3):271-80
10929849
Res Aging. 2009;31(4):463-491
20046978
J Gerontol. 1988 Sep;43(5):M115-21
3418031
N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 1;362(13):1211-8
20357283
Ann Intern Med. 2000 May 16;132(10):825-32
10819707
Arch Intern Med. 1989 Jun;149(6):1367-72
2499292
Arch Intern Med. 2001 Feb 12;161(3):421-30
11176768
Death Stud. 2008;32(3):273-90
18705171