Validating care and treatment scenarios for measuring decisional conflict regarding future care preferences among older adults

Author:

Sinclair Craig12ORCID,Yeoh Ling1,Karusoo‐Musumeci Ava2,Auret Kirsten A.3,Clayton Josephine M.45,Hilgeman Michelle67,Halcomb Elizabeth8,Sinclair Ron9,Martini Angelita1011,Meller Anne12,Walton Rebecca10,Wei Li13,Dao‐Tran Tiet‐Hanh14,Kurrle Susan5,Comans Tracy14

Affiliation:

1. School of Psychology University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia

2. Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) Sydney New South Wales Australia

3. Rural Clinical School of Western Australia University of Western Australia Albany Western Australia Australia

4. The Palliative Centre, HammondCare Sydney New South Wales Australia

5. Northern Clinical School University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia

6. Tuscaloosa Veterans Affairs Medical Center Tuscaloosa Alabama USA

7. Department of Psychology The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa Alabama USA

8. School of Nursing University of Wollongong Wollongong New South Wales Australia

9. University of Adelaide Adelaide South Australia Australia

10. Brightwater Group Perth Western Australia Australia

11. University of Western Australia Perth Western Australia Australia

12. Prince of Wales Hospital, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Sydney New South Wales Australia

13. College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education Murdoch University Perth Western Australia Australia

14. Centre for Health Services Research University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveDecisional conflict is used increasingly as an outcome measure in advance care planning (ACP) studies. When the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) is used in anticipatory decision‐making contexts, the scale is typically tethered to hypothetical scenarios. This study reports preliminary validation data for hypothetical scenarios relating to life‐sustaining treatments and care utilisation to inform their broader use in ACP studies.MethodsThree hypothetical scenarios were developed by a panel of multidisciplinary researchers, clinicians and community representatives. A convenience sample of 262 older adults were surveyed. Analyses investigated comprehensibility, missing data properties, sample norms, structural, convergent and discriminant validity.ResultsResponse characteristics suggested that two of the scenarios had adequate comprehensibility and response spread. Missing response rates were unrelated to demographic characteristics. Predicted associations between DCS scores and anxiety (r's = .31–.37, p < .001), and ACP engagement (r's = −.41 to −.37, p < .001) indicated convergent validity.ConclusionA substantial proportion of older adults reported clinically significant levels of decisional conflict when responding to a range of hypothetical scenarios about care or treatment. Two scenarios showed acceptable comprehensibility and response characteristics. A third scenario may be suitable following further refinement.Patient or Public ContributionThe scenarios tested here were designed in collaboration with a community representative and were further piloted with two groups of community members with relevant lived experiences; four people with life‐limiting conditions and five current or former care partners.

Funder

National Health and Medical Research Council

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3