Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background Patients' loved ones often make end-of-life treatment decisions, but the accuracy of their substituted judgments and the factors associated with accuracy are poorly understood. Objective To assess the accuracy of judgments made by surrogate decision makers; ascertain the beliefs, practices, and clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with accuracy of surrogates' decisions; assess the preferences of patients for life-sustaining treatments; and compare differences in accuracy across diagnoses. Results Preferences varied according to mode of treatment and scenario. In a binary logit model, the accuracy of substituted judgments was positively associated with the patient having spoken with the surrogate about end-of-life issues (odds ratio [OR], 1.9 [95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3]), the patient having private insurance (OR, 1.4 [CI, 1.1 to 1.7]), the surrogate's level of education (OR, 1.5 [CI, 1.2 to 1.9]), and the patient's level of education (OR, 1.7 [CI, 1.4 to 2.2]). Accuracy was negatively associated with the patient's belief that he or she would live longer than 10 years (OR, 0.6 [CI, 0.5 to 0.7]), surrogate experience with life-sustaining treatment (OR, 0.4 [CI, 0.3 to 0.5]), surrogate participation in religious services (OR, 0.67 [CI, 0.50 to 0.91]), and a diagnosis of heart failure (OR, 0.6 [CI, 0.5 to 0.8]). Age, ethnicity, marital status, religion, and advance directives were not associated with accuracy. Conclusions The accuracy of substituted judgments is associated with multiple clinically apparent patient and surrogate factors.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Sulmasy, D. P., Terry, P. B., Weisman, C. S., Miller, D. J., Stallings, R. Y., Vettese, M. A., et al. (1998). The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses. Annals of internal medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-128-8-199804150-00002

Vancouver

Sulmasy DP, Terry PB, Weisman CS, Miller DJ, Stallings RY, Vettese MA, et al. The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses. Annals of internal medicine. 1998. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-128-8-199804150-00002. PMID: 9537935.

BibTeX

@article{sulmasy1998-9537935,
  author  = {Sulmasy, D. P. and Terry, P. B. and Weisman, C. S. and Miller, D. J. and Stallings, R. Y. and Vettese, M. A. and Haller, K. B.},
  title   = {{The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses}},
  journal = {Annals of internal medicine},
  year    = {1998},
  doi     = {10.7326/0003-4819-128-8-199804150-00002},
  pmid    = {9537935},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-128-8-199804150-00002}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 55/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 32 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 55 of 100. Total 55 of 100.32 of the 58 points we could judge = 55 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported 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, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Annals of internal medicine)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
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 1998 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 2 / 4 250 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
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 — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 9537935)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 32 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total 55 / 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.

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.

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →