Abstract/References

Association between subjective economic status and refusal of life-prolonging treatment: a cross-sectional study using content analysis with stratified random sampling

Hideaki Kasuga, Shota Endo, Yusuke Masuishi, Tomoo Hidaka, Takeyasu Kakamu, Keiko Saito, Koichi Abe, Tetsuhito Fukushima

Abstract

Introduction: Older adults tend to refuse life-prolonging treatment for various reasons, and it is important to respect their choice of treatment at the end-of-life stage. The present study examines the associations of subjective economic status and gender with reasons for refusal of life-prolonging treatment in older adults in general population.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, using stratified random sampling, 1,595 older adults living in Koriyama City, Japan, as of 2016, completed self-administered questionnaires on subjective economic status and preference for life-prolonging treatment, with free-description regarding reasons for refusal. We analyzed the associations between the combination of subjective economic status and gender with frequently mentioned terms and their clusters regarding such reasons, using χ2 test, content analysis, text mining and hierarchical cluster analysis.

Results: The combinations of subjective economic status and gender were significantly associated with clustered reasons for refusal of life-prolonging treatment (p < 0.01). The reasons frequently mentioned were: ‘avoidance of unnecessary medical care’ and ‘dignity’ in well-off females; and ‘financial burden on family’ in poor males.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that older adults who at first glance appear to be freely refusing life-prolonging treatment, may have their decision making restricted through economic constraints.

The content of research paper

References

1. Bosshard G, Zellweger U, Bopp M, et al. Medical End-of-Life Practices in Switzerland: A Comparison of 2001 and 2013. JAMA Intern Med, 176:555-556, 2016.
2. Clarke G, Fistein E, Holland A, Barclay M, Theimann P, Barclay S. Preferences for care towards the end of life when decision-making capacity may be impaired:A large scale cross-sectional survey of public attitudes in Great Britain and the United States. PLoS One, 12:e0172104, 2017.
3. Mori M, Morita T. Advances in Hospice and Palliative Care in Japan:A Review Paper. Korean J Hosp Palliat Car, 19:283-291, 2016.
4. Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, McNeilly M, McIntyre L, Tulsky JA. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA, 284:2476-2482, 2000.
5. Steinhauser KE, Clipp EC, McNeilly M, Christakis NA, McIntyre LM, Tulsky JA. In search of a good death:observations of patients, families, and providers. Ann Intern Med, 132:825-832, 2000.
6. van Wijngaarden E, Goossensen A, Leget C. The social-political challenges behind the wish to die in older people who consider their lives to be completed and no longer worth living. J Eur Soc Policy, 28:419-429, 2018.
7. Pronovost P, Angus DC. Economics of end-of-life care in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med, 29: 46-51, 2001.
8. Crawley L, Payne R, Bolden J, Payne T, Washington P, Williams S. Palliative and end-of-life care in the African American community. JAMA, 284: 2518-2521, 2000.
9. Borum ML, Lynn J, Zhong Z. The effects of patient race on outcomes in seriously ill patients in SUPPORT:an overview of economic impact, medical intervention, and end-of-life decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc, 48:194-198, 2000.
10. Demakakos P, Nazroo J, Breeze E, Marmot M. Socioeconomic status and health:the role of subjective social status. Soc Sci Med, 67:330-340, 2008.
11. Dreyer A, Forde R, Nortvedt P. Autonomy at the end of life:life-prolonging treatment in nursing homes—relatives’ role in the decision-making process. J Med Ethics, 35:672-677, 2009.
12. Halvorsen K, Førde R, Nortvedt P. Value choices and considerations when limiting intensive care treatment:a qualitative study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 53:10-17, 2009.
13. Arber S, Vandrevala T, Daly T, Hampson S. Understanding gender differences in older people’s attitudes towards life-prolonging medical technologies, J Aging Stud, 22:366-375, 2008
14. Carmel S. The will to live:gender differences among elderly persons. Soc Sci Med, 52:949-958, 2001.
15. Hidaka T, Endo S, Kasuga H, et al. Disparity in pre-emptive end-of-life conversation experience caused by subjective economic status among general Japanese older adults:a cross-sectional study with stratified random sampling, BMJ Open, 9:e031681, 2019.
16. Hidaka T, Endo S, Kasuga H, et al. Associations of combinations of housing tenure status and household structure with subjective happiness among community-dwelling older adults:A cross-sectional study with stratified random sampling. Geriatr Gerontol Int, 20:615-620, 2020.
17. Hasegawa A, Takahashi M, Nemoto M, et al. Lexical analysis suggests differences between subgroups in anxieties over radiation exposure in Fukushima. J Radiat Res, 59:83-90, 2018.
18. Higuchi K. Quantitative analysis of textual data: Differentiation and coordination of two approaches. Sociological Theory and Methods (in Japanese), 19:101-115, 2004.
19. Seale C, Addington-Hall J. Dying at the best time. Soc Sci Med, 40:589-595, 1995.
20. Bhandari TR, Kutty VR, Ravindran TK. Women’s Autonomy and Its Correlates in Western Nepal: A Demographic Study. PLoS One, 11(1):e01474732016.
21. Nilsson ME, Maciejewski PK, Zhang B, et al. Mental health, treatment preferences, advance care planning, location, and quality of death in advanced cancer patients with dependent children. Cancer, 115:399-409, 2009.
22. Barnato AE, Anthony DL, Skinner J, Gallagher PM, Fisher ES. Racial and ethnic differences in preferences for end-of-life treatment. J Gen Intern Med, 24:695-701, 2009.
23. Smith JP. Healthy bodies and thick wallets:the dual relation between health and economic status. J Econ Perspect, 13:144-166, 1999.

Figures