Factors Influencing Attitude toward Advance Directives of Older Cancer Patients

Min Hye Lee; Yeon-Hwan Park

doi:10.7475/kjan.2015.27.4.449

Articles

Page Path

Original Article

Factors Influencing Attitude toward Advance Directives of Older Cancer Patients

Min Hye Lee¹, Yeon-Hwan Park²

Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 2015;27(4):449-458.
Published online: August 31, 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2015.27.4.449

¹College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul

²College of Nursing, The Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Park, Yeon-Hwan College of Nursing, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-799, Korea. Tel: +82-2-740-8803, Fax: +82-2-765-4103, E-mail: hanipyh@snu.ac.kr

• Received: June 8, 2015 • Accepted: August 16, 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

14 Views
0 Download
14 Crossref

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

Purpose
The aims of this study were to identify the reported attitudes of older patients with cancer toward advance directives (ADs) and the factors associated with their attitudes toward ADs.
Methods
The design was a cross-sectional survey. The age mean of the 130 participants were 70.8, and 66.2% of the participants were male. The data were collected at one university hospital in Seoul, South Korea during the period from October 1^st to December 5^th in 2013. The data collecting instruments were the Advance Directives Attitude Survey (ADAS) and questionnaires including socio-demographic and disease-related characteristics, family function.
Results
30.0% of the participants were aware of ADs, only 9% of them had been informed by healthcare providers. Most participants (93.1%) intended to complete ADs. The mean score of ADAS was 48.29. The stepwise linear regression analysis indicated that family function, perceived health status, period of education, and age accounted for a significant percentage (52.0%, p<.001) of the variance in participants’ ADAS. The variable with the greatest effect was family function.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that family function and attitude of older cancer patients need to be considered for adapting ADs to Korean health care systems. Healthcare providers should include family members in advanced care planning discussions.
Key Words: Advance directives; Advance care planning; Aged; Cancer; Family

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Subjects (N=130)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD
Gender	Male	86 (66.2)
Gender	Female	44 (33.8)
Age (year)		70.75±5.09
	65~74	98 (75.4)
	≥75	32 (24.6)
Spouse	Having	114 (87.7)
Spouse	Not having	16 (12.3)
Level of education	None	10 (7.8)
	Elementary school	18 (13.8)
	Middle school	23 (17.7)
	High school	38 (29.2)
	University	41 (31.5)
Religion	Yes	97 (74.6)
Religion	No	33 (25.4)
Living with	Alone	14 (10.8)
	Spouse	71 (54.6)
	Spouse & children	35 (26.9)
	Children	6 (4.6)
	Others	4 (3.1)
Medical expenses payment	Self	73 (56.2)
	Children	32 (24.6)
	Self + Children	25 (19.2)
Cancer site	HPB	98 (75.4)
	Gastroenteric	21 (16.1)
	Urinary	11 (8.5)
Period since cancer diagnosis (month)		48.36±55.40
	0~11	35 (27.0)
	12~35	32 (24.6)
	36~59	18 (13.8)
	60~83	19 (14.6)
	≥84	26 (20.0)
Period of medical treatment (month)		46.96±54.43
	0~11	36 (27.7)
	12~35	32 (24.6)
	36~59	17 (13.1)
	60~83	20 (15.4)
	≥84	25 (19.2)
Perceived health status		6.18±1.78
	0~3	7 (5.4)
	4~7	98 (75.4)
	8~10	25 (19.2)
Listen about ADs	Yes	43 (33.1)
Listen about ADs	No	87 (66.9)
Route of informed about ADs (N=43)	Healthcare provider	4 (9.0)
	Broadcast media	27 (61.4)
	Surrounding people	8 (18.2)
	Others	5 (11.4)
Awareness of ADs	Yes	39 (30.0)
Awareness of ADs	No	91 (70.0)
Intention to ADs	Yes	121 (93.1)
Intention to ADs	No	9 (6.9)
Preferred type of decision about ADs	Make one's own decision	24 (18.5)
	Discuss with family	81 (62.3)
	Discuss with family when	25 (19.2)
	necessary
Family member to discuss about ADs^†	Spouse	61 (44.5)
	Children	35 (25.5)
	Brother and Sister All family	1 (0.8) 38 (27.7)
	Others	2 (1.5)

ADs=Advance Directives; HPB=Hepatopancreaticobiliary;

^†Duplicated answer.

Table 2.

Attitude toward ADs and Family Function of the Subjects (N=130)

Variables	Items	M±SD
Attitude toward ADs	Having an ADs would make my family feel left out of caring for me.	3.32±0.56
	It is better to make an advance directive when you are healthy.	3.32±0.58
	Having an ADs would make sure that my family knows my treatment wishes.	3.30±0.55
	Making my end of life treatment wishes clear with an ADs would keep my family from disagreeing over what to do if I were very sick and unable to decide for myself.	3.19±0.64
	Having an ADs would make sure that I get the treatment at the end of my life that I do want.	3.18±0.61
	If I could not make decisions, my family would be given choices about the treatment I would receive.	3.17±0.64
	Having an ADs would prevent costly medical exposures for my family.	3.15±0.65
	I trust one of my family or friends to make treatment decisions for me if I cannot make them myself.	3.13±0.66
	Making my end of life treatment wishes clear with an ADs would help to prevent guilt in my family.	3.12±0.70
	My doctor would include my concerns in decisions about my treatment at the end of life.	3.08±0.70
	I am not sick enough to have an ADs.^†	2.97±0.74
	I would be given choices about the treatment I would receive at the end of my life.	2.96±0.71
	I think my family would want me to have an ADs.	2.69±0.85
	My family wants me to have an ADs.	2.64±0.79
	Making my end of life treatment wishes clear with an ADs would have no impact on my family.^†	2.60±0.84
	I have choices about the treatment I would receive at the end of my life.	2.48±0.95
	Total Mean	3.02±0.75
	Total Sum	48.29±5.57
Family function	Cohesion	39.36±6.84
	Adaptability	36.15±5.74
	Total Sum	75.51±11.13

ADs=advance directives;

^†Reverse score.

Table 3.

Differences of Attitude toward ADs according to Characteristics of the Subjects (N=130)

Characteristics	Categories^†	M±SD	t or F	p
Gender	Male	48.52±5.31	0.66	.511
Gender	Female	47.84±6.08	0.66	.511
Age (year)	65~74	49.47±5.29	4.52	＜.001
Age (year)	≥75	44.69±4.86	4.52	＜.001
Spouse	Having	48.09±5.38	-1.12	.265
Spouse	Not having	49.75±6.82	-1.12	.265
Level of education	None^a	41.70±4.92	9.45	＜.001
	Elementary school^a,b	45.56±5.14	a＜b＜c
	Middle school^b,c	48.39±4.77
	High school^b,c	48.08±4.34
	University^c	51.24±5.50
Religion	Yes	48.37±5.72	0.28	.783
Religion	No	48.06±5.19	0.28	.783
Living with	Alone	46.86±5.35	2.16	.078
	Spouse	48.69±5.57
	Spouse&Children	47.63±4.61
	Children	46.33±7.34
	Others	55.00±8.37
Medical expenses payment	Self^a	49.29±5.34	5.77 a＞b	.004
	Children^b	45.50±5.39
	Self + Children^a	48.96±5.47
Cancer site	HPB	48.77±5.92	1.52	.222
	Gastroenteric	46.57±4.59
	Urinary	47.36±3.04
Period since cancer diagnosis	0~11	47.40±4.68	2.04	.093
	12~35	46.69±5.49
	36~59	49.83±5.32
	60~83	48.63±5.16
	≥84	50.15±6.69
Period of medical treatment	0~11	47.47±4.63	1.53	.198
	12~35	46.88±5.70
	36~59	49.47±5.25
	60~83	49.05±5.36
	≥84	49.88±6.68
Perceived health status	0~3^a	39.29±3.40	16.66	＜.001
	4~7^b	48.11±5.10	a＜b
	8~10^b	51.52±4.93	a＜b
Listen about ADs	Yes	47.95±4.73	0.53	.600
Listen about ADs	No	48.46±5.96	0.53	.600
Route of informed about ADs	Healthcare provider	50.75±6.50	0.56	.725
	Broadcast media	47.19±4.53
	Surrounding people	49.13±5.57
	Others	47.80±2.49
Awareness of ADs	Yes	48.49±4.50	-0.29	.771
Awareness of ADs	No	48.21±5.60	-0.29	.771
Intention to ADs	Yes	48.40±5.65	0.85	.400
Intention to ADs	No	46.78±4.27	0.85	.400
Preferred type of decision about ADs	Make one's own decision	49.43±41.71	1.21	.300
	DWF	48.21±26.90
	DWF when necessary	46.92±33.21

ADs=advance directives, DWF=discuss with family; HPB=hepatopancreaticobiliary;

^†Mean followed by same letter do not differ significant at post hoc test.

Table 4.

Correlation among Variables related to the Attitude toward ADs (N=130)

Variables	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	X8	X9	X10	X11
X1	.63**	.60**	.60**	-.35**	.47**	.54**	.00	.23*	.22*	.21*
X2		.95**	.94**	-.24**	.41**	.50**	.11	.14	.13	.13
X3			.79**	-.25**	.40**	.53**	.11	.10	.09	.08
X4				-.21*	.36**	.41**	.10	.17	.16	.16
X5					-.20*	-.18*	-.19*	-.07	-.07	-.07
X6						.38**	.19*	.12	.12	.12
X7							.03	.13	.13	.13
X8								.01	.01	-.01
X9									1.00**	.99**
X10										99**

X1=attitude toward advance directives; X2=family function; X3=cohesion; X4=adaptability; X5=age; X6=period of education; X7=perceived health status; X8=no. of living together family; X9=period since cancer diagnosis; X10=period since informed about illness; X11=period of medical; ADs=Advance Directives;

*p＜.05,

**p＜.01.

Table 5.

Associations of Attitude toward Advance Directives with Variables by Stepwise Linear Regression Analysis (N=130)

Variables	B^†	SE	β	R²	t	p
(Constant)	39.69	5.98			6.64	＜.001
Family function (FACE III)	0.20	0.04	.39	.39	5.30	＜.001
Perceived health status	0.78	0.23	.25	.46	3.41	.001
Period of education (year)	0.24	0.09	.18	.50	0.18	.010
Age (year)	-0.20	0.07	-.18	.53	-2.80	.006
		R²=.53, Adjusted R²=.52, F=35.29, p＜.001

SE=standard errors;

^†Unstandardized coefficients.

REFERENCES

1.Seo HG. Medical expenses of terminal cancer patient are maximum with 1 month of death [Internet] 2013 Oct 9;Available from:.http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2013/10/08/0200000000AKR20131008207500017.HTML.
2.Sohn MS. Ethical and legal aspect of termination of hospital care. Journal of Korean Medical Association. 1998;4(7):707-11.
3.Kim SM, Lee YJ, Kim SY. Attribute considered important for a good death among elderly and adults. Journal of the Korea Gerontological Society. 2003;23(3):95-110.
4.Pyun HJHealth status, advanced directives among community dwelling elders [master's thesis]. Seoul: Ewha Womens University; 2012.
5.Heo DS. Patient autonomy and advance directives in Korea. Journal of Korean Medical Association. 2009;52(9):865-70.
Article
6.Miller CANursing for wellness in older adults: theory and practice. 4th ed.. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
7.Rosnick CB, Reynolds SL. Thinking ahead: factors associated with executing advance directives. Journal of Aging and Health. 2003;15(2):409-29.
8.Nolan MT, Bruder M. Patients' attitudes toward advance directives and end-of-life treatment decisions. Nursing Outlook. 1997;45(5):204-8.
9.Hopp FP. Preferences for surrogate decision makers, informal communication, and advance directives among community-dwelling elders: results from a national study. The Gerontologist. 2000;40(4):449-57. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/40.4.449.
10.Salmond SW, David E. Attitudes toward advance directives and advance directive completion rates. Orthopaedic Nursing. 2005;24(2):117-27.
Article
11.Huang HL, Chiu TY, Lee LT, Yao CA, Chen CY, Hu WY. Family experience with difficult decisions in end-of-life care. Psycho-Oncology. 2012;21(7):785-91. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.3107.
Article
12.Douglas R, Brown HN. Patients' attitudes toward advance directives. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2002;34(1):61-5. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2002.00061.x.
13.Alano GJ, Pekmezaris R, Tai JY, Hussain MJ, Jeune J, Louis B, et al. Factors influencing older adults to complete advance directives. Palliative & Supportive Care. 2010;8(03):267-75. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1478951510000064.
Article
14.Kim SM, Lee MA, Kim SY. A survey on life sustaining treatment experienced by adults with deceased family member. Journal of the Korea Gerontological Society. 2002;21(3):15-27.
15.Kim SH. Factors influencing preferences of Korean people toward advance directives. Nursing ethics. 2011;18(4):505-13.
Article
PDF
16.La Puma J, Silverstein MD, Stocking CB, Roland D, Siegler M. Life-sustaining treatment: a prospective study of patients with DNR orders in a teaching hospital. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1988;148(10):2193-8.
17.Lee SM, Kim SY, Lee HS. The process of medical decision-making for cancer patients. Korean Journal of Medical Ethics. 2009;12(1):1-14.
Article
PDF
18.High DM. Why are elderly people not using advance directives? Journal of Aging and Health. 1993;5(4):497-515.
Article
PDF
19.Kwak J, Salmon JR. Attitudes and preferences of Korean American older adults and caregivers on end of life care. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2007;55(11):1867-72.
Article
20.Matsui M. Perspectives of elderly people on advance directives in Japan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2007;39(2):172-6.
21.Lee HL, Park YH. Attitude toward advance directives of older adults using senior centers. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 2014;16(2):160-9.
22.Olson DH, Portner J, Lavee YFamily adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales (FACES III). St Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science; 1985.
23.Kim YH, Moon HJ. The comparative study of family dynamics between families of problem students and normal students. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 1993;23(2):187-206.
24.Song KO, Jo HS. Ethical Awareness and attitudes of patients' families towards DNR (Do-not-Resuscitate). Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2010;16(3):73-84.
25.Hanson LC, Rodgman E. The use of living wills at the end of life: a national study. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1996;156(9):1018-22.
26.Blackhall LJ, Murphy ST, Frank G, Michel V, Azen S. Ethnicity and attitudes toward patient autonomy. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995;274(10):820-5.
Article
27.Carr D, Moorman SM, Boerner K. End-of-life planning in a family context: does relationship quality affect whether (and with whom) older adults plan? The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2013;68(4):586-92. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbt034.
Article
28.McLaughlin LA, Braun KL. Asian and Pacific Islander cultural values: considerations for health care decision making. Health & Social Work. 1998;23(2):116-26.
Article
29.Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients'preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient education and counseling. 2006;60(2):102-14.
30.Bradley EH, Wetle T, Horwitz SM. The patient self determination act and advance directive completion in nursing homes. Archives of Family Medicine. 1998;7:417-24.
Article

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Factors Affecting Intention of Signing the Advance Directives in Middle Aged Adults in Korea Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Cross-sectional Study
Hyun Jeong Park, Kyu Eun Lee
Journal of Health Informatics and Statistics.2024; 49(3): 279. CrossRef
Factors That Influence Attitudes toward Advance Directives among Female Cancer Patients
Aeri Kim, Kisook Kim
The Korean Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care.2023; 26(2): 80. CrossRef
Making decisions on life-sustaining treatment among Koreans: a population-based nationwide survey
Ae-Ran Kim, Kwang-Hwan Kim, Seok-Hwan Bae, Jung-Hee Park, Chiara Achangwa, Moo-Sik Lee
Journal of Global Health Science.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Factors Influencing Advanced Directives Among Hemodialysis Patients
Eunseong SON, Minjeong SEO
Korean Journal of Medical Ethics.2022; 25(3): 243. CrossRef
Factors Affecting Intention of Signing an Advanced Directives in Cancer Patients
Eun-Ju Ha, Mee Ock Gu
Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing.2021; 28(1): 121. CrossRef
Modifiable Factors Associated with the Completion of Advance Treatment Directives in Hematologic Malignancy: A Patient–Caregiver Dyadic Analysis
JinShil Kim, Jinny Park, Mee Ok Lee, Eun Young Park, Seongkum Heo, Jae Lan Shim
Journal of Palliative Medicine.2020; 23(5): 611. CrossRef
Attitudes toward advance directives and prognosis in patients with heart failure: a pilot study
JinShil Kim, Minjeong An, Seongkum Heo, Mi-Seung Shin
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2020; 35(1): 109. CrossRef
Associations of Advance Directive Knowledge, Attitudes, and Barriers/Benefits With Preferences for Advance Treatment Directives Among Patients With Heart Failure and Their Caregivers
JINSHIL KIM, MI-SEUNG SHIN, YAE MIN PARK, HYANG-NANG LEE, SEONGKUM HEO, SONGTHIP OUNPRASEUTH
Journal of Cardiac Failure.2020; 26(1): 61. CrossRef
Psychometric Testing of the Korean Version of the Attitudes toward the Advance Directives in Low-Income Chronically Ill Older Adults
JinShil Kim, Seongkum Heo, Sun Woo Hong, HeeRyang Kim, Ahrang Jung, Minjeong An, JaeLan Shim
Healthcare.2020; 8(1): 62. CrossRef
Development of Advance Directives for Nursing Home Residents
Kyem Ju Lee, Sung Ok Chang
Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing.2019; 21(2): 75. CrossRef
The Relationship among Attitudes toward the Withdrawal of Life-sustaining Treatment, Death Anxiety, and Death Acceptance among Hospitalized Elderly Cancer Patients
YeonMi Seo, Sujin Shin
Asian Oncology Nursing.2019; 19(3): 142. CrossRef
Good Death Awareness, Attitudes toward Advance Directives and Preferences for Care Near the End of Life among Hospitalized Elders in Long-term Care Hospitals
Eunju Kim, Yoonju Lee
Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing.2019; 26(3): 197. CrossRef
The Korean–Advance Directive Model and Factors Associated With Its Completion Among Patients With Hematologic Disorders
Mee Ok Lee, Jinny Park, Eun Young Park, Youngji Kim, Eunjoo Bang, Seongkum Heo, JinShil Kim
Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing.2019; 21(4): E10. CrossRef
Comparison of forecasting models of disease occurrence due to the weather in elderly patients
Seonjae Lee, In-Kwon Yeo
Korean Journal of Applied Statistics.2016; 29(1): 145. CrossRef

Cite

CITE

export

Copy Download

Format
XML Download

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Factors Influencing Attitude toward Advance Directives of Older Cancer Patients

Korean J Adult Nurs. 2015;27(4):449-458. Published online August 31, 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2015.27.4.449

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Factors Influencing Attitude toward Advance Directives of Older Cancer Patients

Korean J Adult Nurs. 2015;27(4):449-458. Published online August 31, 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2015.27.4.449

Factors Influencing Attitude toward Advance Directives of Older Cancer Patients

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Subjects (N=130)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD
Gender	Male	86 (66.2)
Gender	Female	44 (33.8)
Age (year)		70.75±5.09
	65~74	98 (75.4)
	≥75	32 (24.6)
Spouse	Having	114 (87.7)
Spouse	Not having	16 (12.3)
Level of education	None	10 (7.8)
	Elementary school	18 (13.8)
	Middle school	23 (17.7)
	High school	38 (29.2)
	University	41 (31.5)
Religion	Yes	97 (74.6)
Religion	No	33 (25.4)
Living with	Alone	14 (10.8)
	Spouse	71 (54.6)
	Spouse & children	35 (26.9)
	Children	6 (4.6)
	Others	4 (3.1)
Medical expenses payment	Self	73 (56.2)
	Children	32 (24.6)
	Self + Children	25 (19.2)
Cancer site	HPB	98 (75.4)
	Gastroenteric	21 (16.1)
	Urinary	11 (8.5)
Period since cancer diagnosis (month)		48.36±55.40
	0~11	35 (27.0)
	12~35	32 (24.6)
	36~59	18 (13.8)
	60~83	19 (14.6)
	≥84	26 (20.0)
Period of medical treatment (month)		46.96±54.43
	0~11	36 (27.7)
	12~35	32 (24.6)
	36~59	17 (13.1)
	60~83	20 (15.4)
	≥84	25 (19.2)
Perceived health status		6.18±1.78
	0~3	7 (5.4)
	4~7	98 (75.4)
	8~10	25 (19.2)
Listen about ADs	Yes	43 (33.1)
Listen about ADs	No	87 (66.9)
Route of informed about ADs (N=43)	Healthcare provider	4 (9.0)
	Broadcast media	27 (61.4)
	Surrounding people	8 (18.2)
	Others	5 (11.4)
Awareness of ADs	Yes	39 (30.0)
Awareness of ADs	No	91 (70.0)
Intention to ADs	Yes	121 (93.1)
Intention to ADs	No	9 (6.9)
Preferred type of decision about ADs	Make one's own decision	24 (18.5)
	Discuss with family	81 (62.3)
	Discuss with family when	25 (19.2)
	necessary
Family member to discuss about ADs^†	Spouse	61 (44.5)
	Children	35 (25.5)
	Brother and Sister All family	1 (0.8) 38 (27.7)
	Others	2 (1.5)

ADs=Advance Directives; HPB=Hepatopancreaticobiliary;

^†Duplicated answer.

Table 2.

Attitude toward ADs and Family Function of the Subjects (N=130)

Variables	Items	M±SD
Attitude toward ADs	Having an ADs would make my family feel left out of caring for me.	3.32±0.56
	It is better to make an advance directive when you are healthy.	3.32±0.58
	Having an ADs would make sure that my family knows my treatment wishes.	3.30±0.55
	Making my end of life treatment wishes clear with an ADs would keep my family from disagreeing over what to do if I were very sick and unable to decide for myself.	3.19±0.64
	Having an ADs would make sure that I get the treatment at the end of my life that I do want.	3.18±0.61
	If I could not make decisions, my family would be given choices about the treatment I would receive.	3.17±0.64
	Having an ADs would prevent costly medical exposures for my family.	3.15±0.65
	I trust one of my family or friends to make treatment decisions for me if I cannot make them myself.	3.13±0.66
	Making my end of life treatment wishes clear with an ADs would help to prevent guilt in my family.	3.12±0.70
	My doctor would include my concerns in decisions about my treatment at the end of life.	3.08±0.70
	I am not sick enough to have an ADs.^†	2.97±0.74
	I would be given choices about the treatment I would receive at the end of my life.	2.96±0.71
	I think my family would want me to have an ADs.	2.69±0.85
	My family wants me to have an ADs.	2.64±0.79
	Making my end of life treatment wishes clear with an ADs would have no impact on my family.^†	2.60±0.84
	I have choices about the treatment I would receive at the end of my life.	2.48±0.95
	Total Mean	3.02±0.75
	Total Sum	48.29±5.57
Family function	Cohesion	39.36±6.84
	Adaptability	36.15±5.74
	Total Sum	75.51±11.13

ADs=advance directives;

^†Reverse score.

Table 3.

Differences of Attitude toward ADs according to Characteristics of the Subjects (N=130)

Characteristics	Categories^†	M±SD	t or F	p
Gender	Male	48.52±5.31	0.66	.511
Gender	Female	47.84±6.08	0.66	.511
Age (year)	65~74	49.47±5.29	4.52	＜.001
Age (year)	≥75	44.69±4.86	4.52	＜.001
Spouse	Having	48.09±5.38	-1.12	.265
Spouse	Not having	49.75±6.82	-1.12	.265
Level of education	None^a	41.70±4.92	9.45	＜.001
	Elementary school^a,b	45.56±5.14	a＜b＜c
	Middle school^b,c	48.39±4.77
	High school^b,c	48.08±4.34
	University^c	51.24±5.50
Religion	Yes	48.37±5.72	0.28	.783
Religion	No	48.06±5.19	0.28	.783
Living with	Alone	46.86±5.35	2.16	.078
	Spouse	48.69±5.57
	Spouse&Children	47.63±4.61
	Children	46.33±7.34
	Others	55.00±8.37
Medical expenses payment	Self^a	49.29±5.34	5.77 a＞b	.004
	Children^b	45.50±5.39
	Self + Children^a	48.96±5.47
Cancer site	HPB	48.77±5.92	1.52	.222
	Gastroenteric	46.57±4.59
	Urinary	47.36±3.04
Period since cancer diagnosis	0~11	47.40±4.68	2.04	.093
	12~35	46.69±5.49
	36~59	49.83±5.32
	60~83	48.63±5.16
	≥84	50.15±6.69
Period of medical treatment	0~11	47.47±4.63	1.53	.198
	12~35	46.88±5.70
	36~59	49.47±5.25
	60~83	49.05±5.36
	≥84	49.88±6.68
Perceived health status	0~3^a	39.29±3.40	16.66	＜.001
	4~7^b	48.11±5.10	a＜b
	8~10^b	51.52±4.93	a＜b
Listen about ADs	Yes	47.95±4.73	0.53	.600
Listen about ADs	No	48.46±5.96	0.53	.600
Route of informed about ADs	Healthcare provider	50.75±6.50	0.56	.725
	Broadcast media	47.19±4.53
	Surrounding people	49.13±5.57
	Others	47.80±2.49
Awareness of ADs	Yes	48.49±4.50	-0.29	.771
Awareness of ADs	No	48.21±5.60	-0.29	.771
Intention to ADs	Yes	48.40±5.65	0.85	.400
Intention to ADs	No	46.78±4.27	0.85	.400
Preferred type of decision about ADs	Make one's own decision	49.43±41.71	1.21	.300
	DWF	48.21±26.90
	DWF when necessary	46.92±33.21

ADs=advance directives, DWF=discuss with family; HPB=hepatopancreaticobiliary;

^†Mean followed by same letter do not differ significant at post hoc test.

Table 4.

Correlation among Variables related to the Attitude toward ADs (N=130)

Variables	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	X8	X9	X10	X11
X1	.63**	.60**	.60**	-.35**	.47**	.54**	.00	.23*	.22*	.21*
X2		.95**	.94**	-.24**	.41**	.50**	.11	.14	.13	.13
X3			.79**	-.25**	.40**	.53**	.11	.10	.09	.08
X4				-.21*	.36**	.41**	.10	.17	.16	.16
X5					-.20*	-.18*	-.19*	-.07	-.07	-.07
X6						.38**	.19*	.12	.12	.12
X7							.03	.13	.13	.13
X8								.01	.01	-.01
X9									1.00**	.99**
X10										99**

*p＜.05,

**p＜.01.

Table 5.

Associations of Attitude toward Advance Directives with Variables by Stepwise Linear Regression Analysis (N=130)

Variables	B^†	SE	β	R²	t	p
(Constant)	39.69	5.98			6.64	＜.001
Family function (FACE III)	0.20	0.04	.39	.39	5.30	＜.001
Perceived health status	0.78	0.23	.25	.46	3.41	.001
Period of education (year)	0.24	0.09	.18	.50	0.18	.010
Age (year)	-0.20	0.07	-.18	.53	-2.80	.006
		R²=.53, Adjusted R²=.52, F=35.29, p＜.001

SE=standard errors;

^†Unstandardized coefficients.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Subjects (N=130)

ADs=Advance Directives; HPB=Hepatopancreaticobiliary;

†

Duplicated answer.

Table 2. Attitude toward ADs and Family Function of the Subjects (N=130)

ADs=advance directives;

†

Reverse score.

Table 3. Differences of Attitude toward ADs according to Characteristics of the Subjects (N=130)

ADs=advance directives, DWF=discuss with family; HPB=hepatopancreaticobiliary;

†

Mean followed by same letter do not differ significant at post hoc test.

Table 4. Correlation among Variables related to the Attitude toward ADs (N=130)

*p＜.05,

**p＜.01.

Table 5. Associations of Attitude toward Advance Directives with Variables by Stepwise Linear Regression Analysis (N=130)

Articles

Page Path

Factors Influencing Attitude toward Advance Directives of Older Cancer Patients

Full Article

Abstract

REFERENCES

Figure & Data

References

Citations

CITE

Download Citation

Format:

Include:

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

ABOUT

BROWSE ARTICLES

EDITORIAL POLICY

FOR CONTRIBUTORS