Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Jorge, Rafaela
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Freitas, Adelaide, Sousa, Liliana
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.34624/jshd.v2i1.8
Resumo: Objective: This study aimed to analyse older people`s end-of-life care priorities and to identify factors associated with these priorities. Methods: We asked 400 people aged 60 years or older living in Belo Horizonte, Brazil their treatment priorities if faced with a serious illness with limited time to live. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify the associated factors. Results: Most participants (65.3%) chose the option ‘improve quality of life for the time they had left’. Only 4% said extending life was the most important priority while the option ‘both equally important’ (quality and extension) was chosen by 30.8 of respondents. Participants in the age group 60-69 years were more likely to choose both quality and life extension than choose to extend life alone (AOR=0.18, 95% CI:0.05-0.72; ref: 80+ years). The group comprised of single + widowers is more likely to prioritize both quality and extension than to prioritize just extending life (AOR=0.28, 95% CI:0.09-0.89; ref: the others marital status) and or just improving the quality of life (AOR=0.62, 95% CI:0.40-0.95; ref: the others marital status). Conclusion: The findings indicated that treatment for improving the quality of life was the most important priority. Two factors influenced the priorities (age group and marital status). To meet people's treatment priorities at end of life policies need to be formulated to develop palliative care services, train health-care professionals and educate patients.
id RCAP_7bf9c646eb4174403444824839d00732
oai_identifier_str oai:proa.ua.pt:article/8
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?Objective: This study aimed to analyse older people`s end-of-life care priorities and to identify factors associated with these priorities. Methods: We asked 400 people aged 60 years or older living in Belo Horizonte, Brazil their treatment priorities if faced with a serious illness with limited time to live. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify the associated factors. Results: Most participants (65.3%) chose the option ‘improve quality of life for the time they had left’. Only 4% said extending life was the most important priority while the option ‘both equally important’ (quality and extension) was chosen by 30.8 of respondents. Participants in the age group 60-69 years were more likely to choose both quality and life extension than choose to extend life alone (AOR=0.18, 95% CI:0.05-0.72; ref: 80+ years). The group comprised of single + widowers is more likely to prioritize both quality and extension than to prioritize just extending life (AOR=0.28, 95% CI:0.09-0.89; ref: the others marital status) and or just improving the quality of life (AOR=0.62, 95% CI:0.40-0.95; ref: the others marital status). Conclusion: The findings indicated that treatment for improving the quality of life was the most important priority. Two factors influenced the priorities (age group and marital status). To meet people's treatment priorities at end of life policies need to be formulated to develop palliative care services, train health-care professionals and educate patients.Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo foi analisar as prioridades de cuidados em fim de vida de pessoas idosas e identificar os fatores associados com as prioridades. Métodos: Participaram do estudo 400 pessoas, com idade 60 anos ou mais, residentes na cidade de Belo Horizonte, Brasil. Foi perguntado aos participantes qual a prioridade de tratamento numa situação de doença grave com tempo de vida limitado. Os dados foram analisados por meio de regressão logística multinominal para identificar os fatores associados. Resultados: A maioria dos participantes (65.3%) escolheu a opção “melhorar a qualidade de vida do tempo que lhe restasse”. Apenas 4% responderam que “prolongar a vida” é mais importante, enquanto a opção “ambos são igualmente importantes” (prolongar e melhorar) foi escolhida por 30.8% dos participantes. Os participantes do grupo etário 60-69 anos foram mais propensos a escolher a opção “ambos são igualmente importantes” do que somente “prolongar a vida” (AOR=0.18, 95% CI:0.05-0.72; ref: 80+ anos). O grupo dos solteiros + viúvos são mais propensos a priorizar a opção “ambos igualmente importante” do que priorizar somente a opção prolongar a vida (AOR=0.28, 95% CI:0.09-0.89; ref: casados/união estável + divorciados/separados) e somente “melhorar a qualidade de vida” (AOR=0.62, 95% CI:0.40-0.95; ref: casados/união estável + divorciados/separados). Conclusão: Os resultados mostraram que tratamentos que melhoram a qualidade de vida foi a prioridade de tratamento mais importante. Foram encontrados dois fatores que influenciaram as prioridades (grupo etário e estado civil). Para atender às prioridades de tratamentos das pessoas no fim da vida é preciso formular políticas para desenvolver serviços de cuidados paliativos, treinar profissionais de saúde e educar os pacientes.University of Aveiro (UA) and Hospital Center of Baixo Vouga (CHBV)2020-01-31T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.34624/jshd.v2i1.8oai:proa.ua.pt:article/8Journal of Statistics on Health Decision; Vol 2 No 1 (2020): January 2020; In pressJournal of Statistics on Health Decision; vol. 2 n.º 1 (2020): January 2020; In press2184-5794reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://proa.ua.pt/index.php/jshd/article/view/8https://doi.org/10.34624/jshd.v2i1.8https://proa.ua.pt/index.php/jshd/article/view/8/7665Copyright (c) 2020 Rafaela Jorge, Adelaide Freitas, Liliana Sousahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessJorge, RafaelaFreitas, AdelaideSousa, Liliana2022-09-06T09:09:03Zoai:proa.ua.pt:article/8Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T15:27:33.471011Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
title Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
spellingShingle Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
Jorge, Rafaela
title_short Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
title_full Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
title_fullStr Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
title_full_unstemmed Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
title_sort Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
author Jorge, Rafaela
author_facet Jorge, Rafaela
Freitas, Adelaide
Sousa, Liliana
author_role author
author2 Freitas, Adelaide
Sousa, Liliana
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Jorge, Rafaela
Freitas, Adelaide
Sousa, Liliana
description Objective: This study aimed to analyse older people`s end-of-life care priorities and to identify factors associated with these priorities. Methods: We asked 400 people aged 60 years or older living in Belo Horizonte, Brazil their treatment priorities if faced with a serious illness with limited time to live. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify the associated factors. Results: Most participants (65.3%) chose the option ‘improve quality of life for the time they had left’. Only 4% said extending life was the most important priority while the option ‘both equally important’ (quality and extension) was chosen by 30.8 of respondents. Participants in the age group 60-69 years were more likely to choose both quality and life extension than choose to extend life alone (AOR=0.18, 95% CI:0.05-0.72; ref: 80+ years). The group comprised of single + widowers is more likely to prioritize both quality and extension than to prioritize just extending life (AOR=0.28, 95% CI:0.09-0.89; ref: the others marital status) and or just improving the quality of life (AOR=0.62, 95% CI:0.40-0.95; ref: the others marital status). Conclusion: The findings indicated that treatment for improving the quality of life was the most important priority. Two factors influenced the priorities (age group and marital status). To meet people's treatment priorities at end of life policies need to be formulated to develop palliative care services, train health-care professionals and educate patients.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-01-31T00:00:00Z
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/other
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.34624/jshd.v2i1.8
oai:proa.ua.pt:article/8
url https://doi.org/10.34624/jshd.v2i1.8
identifier_str_mv oai:proa.ua.pt:article/8
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://proa.ua.pt/index.php/jshd/article/view/8
https://doi.org/10.34624/jshd.v2i1.8
https://proa.ua.pt/index.php/jshd/article/view/8/7665
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Rafaela Jorge, Adelaide Freitas, Liliana Sousa
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Rafaela Jorge, Adelaide Freitas, Liliana Sousa
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv University of Aveiro (UA) and Hospital Center of Baixo Vouga (CHBV)
publisher.none.fl_str_mv University of Aveiro (UA) and Hospital Center of Baixo Vouga (CHBV)
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Statistics on Health Decision; Vol 2 No 1 (2020): January 2020; In press
Journal of Statistics on Health Decision; vol. 2 n.º 1 (2020): January 2020; In press
2184-5794
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130141965680640