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: Concerns over the creation of advance directives (ADs) and the factors associated with treatment directive decisions among Korean community-dwelling older people with chronic diseases have rarely been addressed.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine knowledge, attitudes and barriers/benefits regarding ADs and their associations with AD treatment preferences among chronically ill, low-income, community-dwelling older people.
METHODS: Using a descriptive, correlational design, older people who were recipients of home visiting service for chronic disease management participated in this study. Home visiting nurses collected data on knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers/benefits and treatment directives using questionnaires during home visits.
RESULTS: Older people (N = 112, mean age = 74.9 years, women = 83.9%) who had chronic diseases such as hypertension (56.3%), diabetes mellitus (40.2%) and cardiovascular disease/stroke (22.3%) participated. Approximately half of the participants preferred hospice care (54.5%), while a few of them preferred aggressive treatments: cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (14.3%), ventilation support (9.8%) and haemodialysis (8.9%). Being married was associated with the likelihood of preferring CPR (odds ratio [OR] = 11.79) and ventilation support (OR = 9.99), higher education with CPR (OR = 1.23) and haemodialysis (OR = 1.16), and having a cardiovascular disease (CVD)/stroke with CPR (OR = 6.46) and hospice care (OR = 3.06). Among the modifiable factors, greater perceived barriers increased the likelihood of CPR preference (OR = 1.12) but decreased the likelihood of hospice care preference (OR = 0.96). Greater perceived benefits decreased the likelihood of CPR preference (OR = 0.81) and ventilation support (OR = 0.89), and AD knowledge decreased the likelihood of haemodialysis preference (OR = 0.23).
CONCLUSION: The multidimensional factors were differently associated with each of the AD treatment preferences. Modifiable factors, including perceived barriers and benefits and knowledge, should be improved to help low-income, community-dwelling older people select adequate AD treatment preferences.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Additional information regarding AD treatments and some modifiable and non-modifiable correlates can be integrated into primary and palliative/supportive care in public health. The current home visitation service may also benefit from incorporating AD discussions while extending the service to embrace AD issues in addition to disease management.
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.
A newly developed Korean-Advance Directive (K-AD) consists of a value statement, treatment directives, and proxy appointment. It remains undetermined whether K-AD is applicable to community-dwelling persons (= aged 60 years). Using a descriptive study design, 275 elderly persons completed the K-AD (mean age = 77.28 ± 8.24 years). The most frequent value at the end of life was comfort dying, followed by no burden to family (23.6%). Among 4 K-AD treatment options, more than half had a preference for hospice care and had reluctance with aggressive treatment choices of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (76.4%), artificial ventilation (75.6%), and tube feeding (76.4%), with one-fifth having a desire for such options. All persons provided proxies, who were predominantly descendants (77.1%), followed by spouses (17.5%). For treatment preferences, men and those with no religion were more likely to receive life-sustaining treatments. These data support the K-AD as being applicable and acceptable among community-dwelling elderly persons; awareness of the K-AD in the community setting may facilitate future application when the need occurs.