Treatment priorities among older people if faced with serious illness: improving the quality of life or extending life?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , |
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 |