The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Advance Directive Attitude Survey in Korean (K-ADAS), a measure of attitudes toward advance directives (ADs). A total of 118 low-income, community-dwelling older adults (mean age, 75.09 years) participated. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to determine the factor structure of the K-ADAS. Validity was further assessed by known associations of the K-ADAS with perceived susceptibility and severity using part of the Advance Care Planning surveys. Its reliability was examined by calculating alpha coefficients. EFA determined a three-factor structure model with good model fit. Validity was further supported with significant correlations between the K-ADAS and susceptibility and severity. Reliability was supported by adequate level of Cronbach's alpha. The K-ADAS was a valid and reliable measure for assessment of AD attitudes with a sound model fit. Thus, the K-ADAS can be used to assess AD attitudes among community-dwelling elders.
Background/Aims: Advance directives (ADs) in Korean patients with heart failure (HF) and the associations of attitude towards ADs and HF prognosis with ADs were initially assessed using the model of the Korean-Advance Directive (K-AD).
Methods: Twenty-four patients with HF (age, 67.1 years; men, 58.3%; ejection fraction, 35.9%) participated. A pilot test to evaluate the feasibility of ADs and the possible associations of attitudes towards ADs and prognosis with end-of-life treatment preferences among patients with HF was conducted.
Results: Fifteen patients (62.5%) completed the K-Ads. The major reason for incomplete K-AD was knowledge deficit. Patients valued "comfortable death" the most (45.4%), followed by "giving no burden to the family" (13.6%). Among treatment preferences, hospice care was preferred by the majority (66.7%), while cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was preferred by the minority (31.8%). Children (50.0%) were mostly appointed as a proxy, followed by the spouse (33.3%). More patients with moderately positive attitudes completed the K-ADs than their counterparts (70.0% vs. 57.1%). The 5-year survival rate was 69.2%; the patients who preferred CPR had a higher survival rate (70.6% vs. 68.5%) whereas those who preferred hospice care had a lower survival rate than their counterparts (70.7% vs. 75.2%).
Conclusions: The findings support the feasibility of the K-AD model, with a high acceptance rate in two-thirds of the sample. Further studies are warranted to investigate whether treatment preferences are associated with attitude towards ADs and/or HF prognosis using larger sample size.
Purpose: Decisional conflict is a significant and important barrier in end-of-life care planning, and it is often encountered in health professionals' discussions with patients and their families. Little is known about the measurement of decisional conflict, and existing measures are not suitable for all contexts. In this study, psychometric properties of the Decisional Conflict Scale, which was translated for the first time into Korean [Korean version of DCS (K-DCS)], were examined.
Methods: A sample of 273 community-dwelling elders was surveyed (mean age: 77.26 years; 80.2% women). Internal consistency reliability and stability reliability were tested by calculating Cronbach a and Pearson's correlation coefficients. Exploratory factor analysis and logistic regression analyses were performed to test validity.
Results: Reliability of the K-DCS was acceptable with Cronbach a =.87; test-retest correlation r = .76. Factor analysis showed a two-factor structure with nine items: informed/values clarity and uncertainty. Concordance between K-DCS and the four treatment directives was significant (kappa values =.78). Controlling for age and gender, those with decision implementation were more likely to implement their decisions on tube feeding (odds ratio = 5.15, p = .033) and hospice care (odds ratio = 2.83, p = .017).
Conclusion: The K-DCS appears to be a valid measure to evaluate decisional conflict about advance directives in community-dwelling Korean older adults. Further validation of the K-DCS is warranted, though caution should be exercised in using subscales because of differences in decisional contexts.