Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28712987›Full record

Trial reportJournal of pain and symptom management2017

The Trial of Ascertaining Individual Preferences for Loved Ones' Role in End-of-Life Decisions (TAILORED) Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve Surrogate Decision Making.

Daniel P Sulmasy, Mark T Hughes, Gayane Yenokyan, Joan Kub, Peter B Terry, Alan B Astrow, Julie A Johnson, Grace Ho, Marie T Nolan

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Structural Validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Among Family Members of Critically Ill Patients.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Daniel P SulmasyGeorgetown University, Washington, DC. Electronic address: sulmasyd@georgetown.edu.
Mark T HughesJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Gayane YenokyanJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Joan KubJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Peter B TerryJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Alan B AstrowCornell University, New York, New York.
Julie A JohnsonThe University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Grace HoJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Marie T NolanJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

Trial of Ascertaining Individual Preferences for Loved Ones' Role in End-of-lifeR01NR010733 · NINR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI NOLAN, MARIE T. · 2009 to 2013
$3.5M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR010733
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextPatients with terminal illnesses often require surrogate decision makers. Prior research has demonstrated high surrogate stress, and that despite standards promoting substituted judgment, most patients do not want their surrogates to make pure substituted judgments for them. It is not known how best to help loved ones fulfill the surrogate role.

objectivesTo test the effectiveness of an intervention to help surrogate decision makers.

methodsOne hundred sixty-six patients (41% with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and 59% with gastrointestinal cancers) and their surrogates at two university medical centers were randomized to an intensive nurse-directed discussion of the end-of-life decision control preferences of the patient (TAILORED) or a discussion of nutrition (CONTROL); 163 completed baseline interviews and underwent the intervention.

resultsTwelve patients died during follow-up and 137 dyads completed the study. Post-intervention, using all available data, TAILORED patients and surrogates became more likely to endorse mutual surrogate decision making, that is, a balance of their own wishes and what the surrogate thinks best (adjusted odds compared with baseline for patients = 1.78, P = 0.04; adjusted odds for surrogates = 2.05, P = 0.03). CONTROL patients became 40% less likely to endorse mutual surrogate decision making (P = 0.08), and CONTROL surrogates did not change significantly from baseline (adjusted odds = 1.44, P = 0.28). Stress levels decreased for TAILORED surrogates (impact of events scale = 23.1 ± 14.6 baseline, 20.8 ± 15.3 f/u, P = 0.046), but not for CONTROL (P = 0.85), and post-intervention stress was lower for TAILORED than CONTROL (P = 0.04). Surrogates' confidence was uniformly high at baseline and did not change. Caregiver burden (Zarit) increased from 12.5 ± 6.5 to 14.7 ± 8.1 for TAILORED (P < 0.01), while not changing for CONTROL, yet satisfaction with involvement in decision making was higher at follow-up for TAILORED than for CONTROL (71% vs. 52%, P = 0.03).

conclusionTAILORED patients and surrogates who completed the study adopted a more mutual decision-making style, balancing their own wishes with what the surrogate thinks would be best for them. Surrogates reported less stress and more satisfaction. Confidence was high at baseline and did not change. There was a modest increase in caregiver burden. These findings suggest that interventions like TAILORED might positively impact surrogate decision making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth CommunicationPatient PreferenceAmyotrophic Lateral SclerosisCaregiversFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursesProxySelf EfficacyStress, PsychologicalTerminal Caredecision-makingend-of-life careEthicssurrogates

Identifiers

PMID28712987
PMCPMC5632104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.