-
- Keiko Kurita, Mark S Lachs, Ronald D Adelman, Eugenia L Siegler, M Cary Reid, and Holly G Prigerson.
- Center for Research on End-of-Life Care, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, United States of America.
- Plos One. 2018 Jan 1; 13 (4): e0196147.
AbstractLittle is known about the association between cognitive dysfunction among informal caregivers and patients' plans and preferences for patients' end of life care. We report on the frequency of cognitive dysfunction among both patients and caregivers and examine associations between caregivers' cognitive screening scores and end of life plans and preferences of patients with advanced cancer. The current sample was derived from a National Cancer Institute- and National Institute of Mental Health-funded study of patients with distant metastasis who had disease progression on at least first-line chemotherapy, and their informal caregivers (n = 550 pairs). The Pfeiffer Short Portable Mental Status, a validated cognitive screen, was administered to patients and caregivers. Patients were interviewed about their end of life plans and preferences. Logistic regression models regressed patients' advance care planning and treatment preferences on caregivers' cognitive screen scores. Patients' cognitive screen scores were included as covariates. Most caregivers (55%) were spouses. Almost 30% of patients scored worse on the cognitive screen than their caregivers and 12% of caregivers scored worse than the patients. For each additional error that caregivers made on the cognitive screen, patients were more likely (AOR = 1.59, p = 0.002) to report that they preferred that everything possible be done to keep them alive and were less likely (AOR = 0.75, p = 0.04) to have a living will or a health care proxy/durable power of attorney. Worse caregiver cognitive screening scores were associated with higher likelihood of patients' reporting that they wanted everything done to save their lives and a lower likelihood of having a living will or other type of advanced care plan. Future studies should confirm these findings in other populations and determine the mechanisms that may underlie the identified relationships.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.