Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Advance directives for medical care--a case for greater use
Emanuel LL, Barry MJ, Stoeckle JD, Ettelson LM, Emanuel EJ.. The New England journal of medicine, 1991-03-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Unlabelled BACKGROUND. Advance directives for medical care and the designation of proxy decision makers to guide medical care after a patient has become incompetent have been widely advocated but little studied. We investigated the attitudes of patients toward planning, perceived barriers to such planning, treatment preferences in four hypothetical scenarios, and the feasibility of using a particular document (the Medical Directive) in the outpatient setting to specify advance directives. Methods We surveyed 405 outpatients of 30 primary care physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital and 102 members of the general public in Boston and asked them as part of the survey to complete the Medical Directive. Results Advance directives were desired by 93 percent of the outpatients and 89 percent of the members of the general public (P greater than 0.2). Both the young and the healthy subgroups expressed at least as much interest in planning as those older than 65 and those in fair-to-poor health. Of the perceived barriers to issuing advance directives, the lack of physician initiative was among the most frequently mentioned, and the disturbing nature of the topic was among the least. The outpatients refused life-sustaining treatments in 71 percent of their responses to options in the four scenarios (coma with chance of recovery, 57 percent; persistent vegetative state, 85 percent; dementia, 79 percent; and dementia with a terminal illness, 87 percent), with small differences between widely differing types of treatments. Specific treatment preferences could not be usefully predicted according to age, self-rated state of health, or other demographic features. Completing the Medical Directive took a median of 14 minutes. Conclusions When people are asked to imagine themselves incompetent with a poor prognosis, they decide against life-sustaining treatments about 70 percent of the time. Health, age, or other demographic features cannot be used, however, to predict specific preferences. Advance directives as part of a comprehensive approach such as that provided by the Medical Directive are desired by most people, require physician initiative, and can be achieved during a regular office visit.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Emanuel, L. L., Barry, M. J., Stoeckle, J. D., Ettelson, L. M., & Emanuel, E. J. (1991). Advance directives for medical care--a case for greater use. The New England journal of medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199103283241305
Vancouver
Emanuel LL, Barry MJ, Stoeckle JD, Ettelson LM, Emanuel EJ. Advance directives for medical care--a case for greater use. The New England journal of medicine. 1991. doi:10.1056/nejm199103283241305. PMID: 2000111.
BibTeX
@article{emanuel1991-2000111,
author = {Emanuel, L. L. and Barry, M. J. and Stoeckle, J. D. and Ettelson, L. M. and Emanuel, E. J.},
title = {{Advance directives for medical care--a case for greater use}},
journal = {The New England journal of medicine},
year = {1991},
doi = {10.1056/nejm199103283241305},
pmid = {2000111},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199103283241305}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Advance directives were desired by 93 percent of the outpatients and 89 percent of the members of the general public (P greater than 0.2).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a top-tier journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (The New England journal of medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1991 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 2000111) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also in Getting a diagnosis
141 studies in the library are filed under Getting a diagnosis with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Getting a diagnosis hub.