Home › Research › End-of-life care
Decision-making and outcomes of feeding tube insertion: a five-state study
Teno JM, Mitchell SL, Kuo SK, Gozalo PL, Rhodes RL, Lima JC, Mor V.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2011-05-03
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives To examine family member's perceptions of decision-making and outcomes of feeding tubes. Design Mortality follow-back survey. Sample weights were used to account for oversampling and survey design. A multivariate model examined the association between feeding tube use and overall quality of care rating regarding the last week of life. Setting Nursing homes, hospitals, and assisted living facilities. Participants Respondents whose relative had died from dementia in five states with varying feeding tube use. Measurements Respondents were asked about discussions, decision-making, and outcomes related to their loved ones' feeding problems. Results Of 486 family members surveyed, representing 9,652 relatives dying from dementia, 10.8% reported that the decedent had a feeding tube, 17.6% made a decision not to use a feeding tube, and 71.6% reported that there was no decision about feeding tubes. Of respondents for decedents with a feeding tube, 13.7% stated that there was no discussion about feeding tube insertion, and 41.6% reported a discussion that was shorter than 15 minutes. The risks associated with feeding tube insertion were not discussed in one-third of the cases, 51.8% felt that the healthcare provider was strongly in favor of feeding tube insertion, and 12.6% felt pressured by the physician to insert a feeding tube. The decedent was often physically (25.9%) or pharmacologically restrained (29.2%). Respondents whose loved ones died with a feeding tube were less likely to report excellent end-of-life care (adjusted odds ratio=0.42, 95% confidence interval=0.18-0.97) than those who were not. Conclusion Based on the perceptions of bereaved family members, important opportunities exist to improve decision-making in feeding tube insertion.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Teno, J. M., Mitchell, S. L., Kuo, S. K., Gozalo, P. L., Rhodes, R. L., Lima, J. C., et al. (2011). Decision-making and outcomes of feeding tube insertion: a five-state study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03385.x
Vancouver
Teno JM, Mitchell SL, Kuo SK, Gozalo PL, Rhodes RL, Lima JC, et al. Decision-making and outcomes of feeding tube insertion: a five-state study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03385.x. PMID: 21539524.
BibTeX
@article{teno2011-21539524,
author = {Teno, J. M. and Mitchell, S. L. and Kuo, S. K. and Gozalo, P. L. and Rhodes, R. L. and Lima, J. C. and Mor, V.},
title = {{Decision-making and outcomes of feeding tube insertion: a five-state study}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03385.x},
pmid = {21539524},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03385.x}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- A multivariate model examined the association between feeding tube use and overall quality of care rating regarding the last week of life.
- Results Of 486 family members surveyed, representing 9,652 relatives dying from dementia, 10.8% reported that the decedent had a feeding tube, 17.6% made a decision not to use a feeding tube, and 71.6% reported that there was no decision about feeding tubes.
- The risks associated with feeding tube insertion were not discussed in one-third of the cases, 51.8% felt that the healthcare provider was strongly in favor of feeding tube insertion, and 12.6% felt pressured by the physician to insert a feeding tube.
Study details
- Effect size10.8%; 17.6%; 71.6%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| 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 | 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21539524) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 61 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 End-of-life care
Also in End-of-life care
116 studies in the library are filed under End-of-life care with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The End-of-life care hub.