Stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment after 3 years of follow-up: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study.

Abstract

Preferences for life-sustaining treatment elicited in one state of health may not reflect preferences in another state of health.
We estimated the stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment across 3 years and whether declines in physical functioning and mental health were associated with changes in preferences for end-of-life treatment. In this longitudinal cohort study of medical students in the graduating classes of 1948 to 1964 at Johns Hopkins University, 818 physicians completed the life-sustaining treatment questionnaire in 1999 and 2002 (mean age at baseline, 69 years).
Although the prevalence of the 3 clusters of life-sustaining treatment preferences remained stable across the 3-year follow-up, certain physicians changed their preferences with time. The probability that physicians were in the same cluster at follow-up as at baseline was 0.41 for "most aggressive," 0.50 for "intermediate care," and 0.80 for "least aggressive." Physicians without advance directives were more likely to transition to the most aggressive cluster than to the least aggressive cluster during the 3-year follow-up (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.45). Age at baseline and decline in physical and mental health were not associated with transitions between 1999 and 2002.
Periodic reassessment of preferences is most critical for patients who desire aggressive end-of-life care or who do not have advance directives.

Full text

Page 1

STABILITY OF PREFERENCES FOR END OF LIFE TREATMENT
AFTER 3 YEARS OF FOLLOW-UP: THE JOHNS HOPKINS
PRECURSORS STUDY
Marsha N. Wittink, MD MBE1, Knashawn H. Morales, ScD2, Lucy A. Meoni, ScM3,4, Daniel E.
Ford, MD MPH3,4, Nae-yuh Wang, PhD3,4, Michael J. Klag, MD MPH3,4, and Joseph J. Gallo,
MD MPH1
1Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania
School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, The Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 4Department of Epidemiology and Department of Health Policy
and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Abstract
Background—Preferences for life-sustaining treatment elicited in one state of health may not
reflect preferences in another state of health.
Objective—We estimated the stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment over 3 years and
whether decline in physical functioning and mental health were associated with change in preferences
for end-of-life treatment.
Design—Mailed survey of older physicians.
Setting—Longitudinal cohort study of medical students in the graduating classes from 1948 to 1964
at Johns Hopkins University.
Participants—818 physicians who completed the life-sustaining treatment questionnaire in 1999
and 2002 (mean age 69 years at baseline).
Measurements—Preferences for life-sustaining treatment, assessed using a checklist
questionnaire in response to a standard vignette.
Results—While the prevalence of the three clusters of life sustaining treatment preferences
remained stable over the 3-year follow-up interval, certain physicians changed their preferences over
time. The probability that physicians were in the same cluster at follow-up as at baseline was 0.41
for “most aggressive,” 0.50 for “intermediate care,” and 0.80 for “least aggressive.” Physicians
without an advance directive were more likely to transition to the “most aggressive” than to the “least
aggressive” cluster over the course of the 3-year follow-up (odds ratio 1.96, 95% confidence interval
[1.11, 3.45]). Age at baseline and decline in physical and mental health were not associated with
transitions between 1999 and 2002.
Limitations—The preferences we elicited might not accurately predict treatment decisions during
actual illness.
Corresponding author: Marsha N. Wittink MD MBE, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of
Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3400 Spruce Street, 2 Gates Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, Phone: 215-614-0212; Fax:
215-662-3591; E-mail: wittinkm@uphs.upenn.edu.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
Published in final edited form as:
Arch Intern Med. 2008 October 27; 168(19): 2125–2130. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.19.2125.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 2

Conclusions—Our findings suggest that periodic re-assessment of preferences are most critical
for patients who desire aggressive end of life care or do not have advance directives. (261 words)
BACKGROUND
Crossing the Quality Chasm called for a vision of the health system that is more responsive to
the wishes and preferences of patients (1). Nowhere is the quality of care more dependent on
eliciting patient and family wishes and values than in the arena of end-of-life care. Goals of
quality of end-of-life care outlined by Singer and colleagues depend on eliciting the preferences
of patients and families: receiving adequate pain and symptom management, avoiding
inappropriate prolongation of dying, achieving a sense of control, relieving the burden on loved
ones, and strengthening relationships with loved ones (2). Nevertheless, studies reveal that 4
in 10 dying patients had severe pain most of the time (3), almost half of incurably ill patients
with advanced dementia and metastatic cancer received non-palliative treatment (4), and
bereaved family members felt that communication concerning end-of-life care issues was poor
(5). Efforts to improve the experience of patients and families at the end of life must incorporate
patient perspectives. Advance directives are one strategy through which patient preferences
can be elicited and recorded to be invoked at a time when the patient may not be able to make
decisions directing care. Since the advent of the Patient Self Determination Act, hospitals,
nursing homes, and health care programs have been required to ask patients about advance
directives and then incorporate the information into medical records. Clinicians are being
encouraged to work with patients and families to fill out advance directives in the out-patient
setting. Despite the emphasis on eliciting and documenting preferences for good quality of
end-of-life care, factors related to clinical aspects of eliciting end-of-life preferences, such as
stability of choices, have not been extensively studied among community-dwelling older
adults.
We estimated the stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment over 3 years and whether
decline in physical functioning and mental health were associated with change in preferences
for end-of-life treatment among participants in one of the oldest aging studies in the world, the
Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Given the age and functional status of the physician
respondents, end-of-life considerations are a reality, not just hypothetical Based on previous
work (6,7), we hypothesized that transitions to more aggressive categories of treatment
preference might be more likely among respondents without an advance directive or with
declining self-rated physical function and mental health.
METHODS
The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study
The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study was designed in 1946 by Caroline Bedell Thomas to
identify characteristics associated with premature cardiovascular disease and death (8–11). All
1,337 students who matriculated into the graduating classes of 1948 to 1964 of the Johns
Hopkins University School of Medicine were eligible. Precursors Study procedures have been
reviewed and approved by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional
Review Board.
Assessment of preferences for potentially life-sustaining treatment
The 1999 and 2002 questionnaires included items about whether the participating physician
had or was considering obtaining a living will or durable power of attorney for health care.
Participants were also asked to consider what types of treatment they would want if they
suffered irreversible brain damage that left them unable to speak understandably or to recognize
people (6,7). In the scenario, based on the Medical Directive developed by Emanuel and
Emanuel (12), the participants were told that they had no terminal illness and might remain in
Wittink et al.Page 2
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 3

this brain-injured state for a long period of time. We selected the scenario of irreversible brain
damage without terminal illness because previous research demonstrated that this scenario
provided a greater degree of variability of responses than other vignettes in the Medical
Directive (12,13). The participants were asked to state their wishes regarding the use of ten
medical interventions: CPR, mechanical ventilation, intravenous fluids, surgically placed
feeding tube for nutrition, dialysis, chemotherapy, major surgery, invasive diagnostic tests,
blood or blood products, and antibiotics (6). The responses for each intervention were coded
a priori into a dichotomous variable as either reject (“No, I would not want”) or accept (yes,
undecided, or trial of treatment). This dichotomization has been used by other investigators
and reflects common clinical practice in which “treatment trial” and “unsure” would translate
into providing life-sustaining treatment to incompetent patients, at least initially (7,13,14).
Assessment of physical functioning and mental health
The SF-36 was administered to the Precursors Study cohort as part of the annual questionnaires
in 1999 and 2002 and was scored using standard techniques (15). The SF-36 has been employed
in studies of patient care outcomes (16–20), and is reliable and valid in older adults (21–23).
The mental health subscale, known as the 5-item version of the Mental Health Inventory (MHI),
has been found to be an accurate screening instrument for the detection of major depression
and other affective disorders (24). Because there are no standardized thresholds for
dichotomized change scores on the SF-36 subscales, thresholds for significant changes in
physical functioning and depression were established a priori based on clinically significant
thresholds reported in a psychometric analysis of the SF-36 (25). The physical functioning
change score was dichotomized at 20 (i.e., a decline of 20 or more points on the physical
functioning subscale between the 1992 and 1998 questionnaires represented a clinically
meaningful decline in physical functioning) and the depression change score at 5.
Analytic strategy
In order to study potentially life-sustaining treatments as a pattern or set of treatments (“latent
classes”) in contrast to a focus on individual interventions, we applied the latent transition
model (26–28). The model provides for simultaneous estimation of: (1) clusters of end of life
treatment preferences; (2) transition probabilities from one cluster of preferences to another;
and, (3) predictors of transitions from one cluster to another. We discuss the details of the latent
transition model in an Appendix.
Data analysis was performed using Mplus version 4.1 and WinLTA version 3.1 which both
utilize an efficient estimation-maximization (EM) algorithm for maximum likelihood
estimation (29). Model choice, in terms of the number of latent classes, was determined through
examination of fit indices as well as in relation to clinically interpretable results. Bayesian
Information Criteria (BIC) (30) were used to compare non-nested models that differed in the
number of latent classes. A smaller value of BIC indicates a better model fit. A Goodness of
Fit statistic, G2, was used to assess the model goodness of fit for nested models with the same
number of latent classes but which differed in the number of parameters estimated (31). The
three-class model yielded the best fit at both time points over two- or four-class models using
statistical criteria (BIC3=9262.64, BIC4=9477.47, BIC2=10046.22).
RESULTS
Sample characteristics
The effective sample size for this analysis was 818 physicians Of the 1,016 participants to
whom questionnaires were sent in 1999, 773 responded with expression of preferences for the
brain injury scenario (76% participation). In 2002, 970 participants were sent questionnaires
and 721 returned with information on end-of-life preferences (74% participation rate). Persons
Wittink et al.Page 3
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 4

who only had preference data at one time point contributed to estimates of preference class
and not to the transition probability. The mean age ± standard deviation of the study sample at
baseline was 69 ± 5.4 years. Reflecting medical school enrollment between 1948 and 1964,
the study sample was 92% white men. The mean physical functioning score ± standard
deviation as assessed by the SF-36 was 86.1 ± 20.3 in 1999 and 83.5 ± 20.9 in 2002. The mean
mental functioning score ± standard deviation as assessed by the SF-36 was 85.0 ± 11.8 in
1999 and 86.2 ± 10.4 in 2002.
Change in specific intervention preferences between 1999 and 2002
Table 1 shows preferences for life-sustaining treatments in response to the hypothetical
scenario in 2002 by preferences assessed in 1999. In general, procedures that were declined in
1999 were likely also to be declined in 2002. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of persons
who desired an intervention in 1999 declined the treatment in 2002.
Treatment preference categories in 1999 and 2002
Preferences derived from the latent transition model grouped together the same way in 1999
and in 2002; namely, (1) a cluster representing desiring most interventions (“most aggressive”
category); (2) a cluster declining most interventions (“least aggressive” category); and (3) an
intermediate cluster (which we have labeled “intermediate care”) in which the primary
interventions desired were only intravenous fluids and antibiotics. Figure 1 shows the
probability of desiring specific interventions given treatment preferences in 1999 and in 2002.
The vertical axis in Figure 1 shows the probability of desiring specific interventions among
persons in a given category of treatment preferences (“most,” “least,” or “intermediate”
categories).
Transitions between 1999 and 2002
Although preferences for end-of-life care clustered together in the same way in 1999 and 2002
(Figure), respondents moved from one cluster to another over the course of the 3-year follow-
up (Table 2). For example, among persons in the most aggressive category of preferences, the
probability of remaining in the most aggressive category 3 years later was 0.41 (upper left
corner of Table 2).
Covariates and transitions between 1999 and 2002
The association of covariates with change in preference between 1999 and 2002, as measured
by the odds ratio, is shown in Table 3. Age and decline in mental or physical health (as measured
by the SF-36) were not statistically significantly associated with transitions to the most
aggressive category compared to transitions to the least aggressive category (the associated
confidence intervals included the null). However, physicians who reported having no living
will or durable power of attorney were twice as likely to make a transition to the most aggressive
category as to the least aggressive category of potentially life-sustaining treatments (odds ratio
1.96, 95% confidence interval [1.11, 3.45]). Table 3 shows there were no statistically
significant associations of specific covariates with transition to the intermediate care category
compared with transitions to the least aggressive category.
DISCUSSION
The latent transition analysis allowed us to classify preferences for end-of-life treatment into
three clinically-relevant clusters based on responses of physicians to a standard assessment
instrument asking about 10 potentially life-sustaining interventions. While the preferences as
tapped by the instrument appeared to cluster the same way in 1999 and 2002 (‘most aggressive,”
“least aggressive,” and “intermediate care”), the likelihood that physicians changed their
Wittink et al.Page 4
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 5

preferences for end-of-life care was related to their cluster at baseline. Most physicians in our
sample fit into the least aggressive treatment preference category, and the physicians who chose
“least aggressive” treatments at baseline were the least likely to change preferences over time
(80% of persons in the “least aggressive” category at baseline were in the same category at
follow-up). Physicians in the “most aggressive” category of preferences at baseline were the
most likely to change preferences over time (41% of the persons in the “most aggressive”
category at baseline were in the same category at follow-up). In addition, we found that
physicians without an advance directive were twice as likely as those with advance directives
to transition to the “most aggressive” category compared to a transition to the “least aggressive”
category over the course of a 3-year follow-up. Age and decline in physical or mental health
as measured by a standard instrument were not associated with transitions in preference
categories.
Before discussing the implications of our findings, it is important to consider the potential
limitations of our study. First, our study sample was a cohort of older physicians who graduated
from one medical school and have participated in a longitudinal study. The generalizability of
the results may be limited to physicians. However, since older physicians are highly likely to
have had professional experience with both the life-sustaining treatments and the complications
of severe irreversible brain damage as presented in our questionnaire, our results are unlikely
to be influenced by participant misunderstanding of the conditions and interventions asked
about in the questionnaire. Also, we would argue that because the respondents are physicians,
and previous studies suggest that experience with specific treatments may be associated with
stability in preferences for health care (32), our estimates of change are likely to be
conservative. In other words, we would expect this sample to provide an estimate of
changeability that would be more stable than samples of persons with less medical education
or experience. However, we acknowledge the possibility that physicians may have either been
influenced by answering the study questions or may have seen patient cases that changed their
minds about their preferences. Second, the measures of physical and mental health were based
on subjective assessment by the respondents and not on objective evaluation. Yet, the
participants were physicians who have been shown to provide accurate reports of their health
(8). Third, we classified the respondents using a statistical model to characterize preferences.
We believe our categorization was more clinically relevant than methods that either evaluated
the difference in the number of interventions accepted (33–36) or assessed only acceptance or
rejection of CPR (37–40). Fourth, we dichotomized the responses to the scenario so that those
who were “unsure” or wanted “a treatment trial” were counted as desiring that treatment. While
this reflects common clinical practice in which “treatment trial” and “unsure” would translate
into providing life-sustaining treatment to incompetent patients, we realize this limits our
ability to study transitions involving those responses. Fifth, by eliciting treatment preferences
using a hypothetical illness scenario, the preferences we elicited might not accurately predict
treatment decisions during actual illness. On the other hand, as hypothetical scenarios are
frequently used in advance directive documents, our methodology reflects common medical
practice regarding planning for end-of-life care. Finally, though our findings suggest that
physicians without an advance directive had less stable preferences over time than those with
an advance directive, we cannot rule out the possibility that persons who choose to have
advance directives strongly desire less treatment at the end of life.
Prospective studies that have examined factors associated with change in preferences for end-
of-life care have been limited to persons with severe physical illness (41,42), residents of
nursing homes (43), and the recently hospitlatized (44), or have assessed preferences for only
single interventions such as CPR (44,45). Among severely ill patients (advanced cancer,
congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) results have been mixed
(41,42). Persons with decline in physical functioning were more likely to accept treatment even
if the outcome was predicted to be a diminished state of health (42). Subsequent study of the
Wittink et al.Page 5
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 6

same cohort incorporated the trade off of burden of treatment with potential outcomes of
treatment (41). The proportions of persons who would undergo therapy with a given likelihood
of death or disability were similar over the course of the follow-up, but individuals were less
likely to want burdensome treatment over time. Greater functional disability and poor quality
of life was associated with decreased willingness to undergo treatment (41,42). McParland and
coworkers studied the preferences of nursing home residents for life-sustaining treatment over
a 2-year interval, finding no association of change in preferences with physical functioning
(43). Carmel and colleagues interviewed a sample of 1138 persons aged 70 years and older
living in the community in Israel three times over 2 years (45). At each interval, approximately
70% of the sample did not change their preferences for aggressiveness of care while the
remainder was split between wanting more care or wanting less. Among persons who declined
life-sustaining treatment at baseline, 87% continued to decline treatment 2 years later (45).
Recognizing that negative findings are difficult to generalize, we did not find an association
of change in mental or physical health (as measured by the SF-36) with change in preferences
for potentially life-sustaining treatment. Perhaps because physicians understand the course of
disease and the nature of potentially life sustaining treatments better, in this cohort, factors
other than age, physical functioning, and mental health appear to play a role in transitions
between categories of potentially life-sustaining treatments.
The treatment options offered at the end of life fell into preference categories that were
clinically meaningful. Our latent transition analysis sharpens the finding the focus on the role
of advanced directives aside from its association with preference category. Given that
physicians without advance directives were more likely to change to the more aggressive
category than to the least aggressive category over time, the process of documenting specific
wishes may make decision making more deliberate, leading to more stability of preferences.
Among physicians, advance directives appear to be used to signify what one does not want
rather than what one does want at the end of life. Older adults focus on preferences for perceived
outcomes of serious illness rather than in terms of preferences for specific treatment options
(46). Refocusing advance directives on delineation of acceptable health states (i.e., the
outcomes of treatment) instead of preferences for specific medical interventions might better
capture end-of-life care goals (47).
We believe that our study suggests that while physician-respondents were relatively stable in
their preferences, persons without an advance directive and who desired the most aggressive
treatment at baseline exhibited the most changeable preferences. We did not find evidence that
changing mental or physical health were strongly associated with preferences for care. Persons
who express a desire for aggressive treatment and those who have not communicated their
wishes with a more formal written document (advance directive) may require frequent clinical
re-evaluation to assess whether wishes have changed. We are carrying out open-ended
interviews of respondents to understand the rationale for preferences for end-of-life care, to
evaluate how and why preferences might change, and to determine whether the focus on
potentially life-sustaining treatment in advance directives might be redirected to more salient
domains such as values or outcomes.
Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Wittink was supported by an NIMH Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award
(MH073658). The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study was supported by grants AG01760, DK02856, and DK07732 from
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland. The PI had full access to the data and takes full
Wittink et al. Page 6
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 7

responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. None of the authors have a conflict of
interest to declare.
Role of the sponsor: The sponsor had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis,
and interpretation of the data; or in preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
2. Singer PA, Martin DK, Kelner M. Quality end-of-life care: patients' perspectives. JAMA 1999;281
(2):163–168. [PubMed: 9917120]
3. Lynn J, Teno JM. Perceptions by family members of the dying experience of older and seriously ill
patients. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997;126:97–106. [PubMed: 9005760]
4. Ahronheim JC, Morrison RS, Baskin SA, Morris J, Meier DE. Treatment of the dying in the acute care
hospital. Advanced dementia and metastatic cancer. Arch Intern Med 1996;156(18):2094–2100.
[PubMed: 8862102]
5. Hanson LC, Danis M, Garrett J. What is wrong with end-of-life care? opinions of bereaved family
members. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 1997;45:1339–1344.
6. Gallo JJ, Straton J, Klag M, et al. Life-sustaining treatments: what do physicians want and do they
express their wishes to others? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003;51(7):961–969.
[PubMed: 12834516]
7. Straton J, Wang NY, Meoni L, et al. Physical functioning, depression, and preferences for treatment
at the end of life: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
2004;52(4):577–582. [PubMed: 15066074]
8. Klag MJ, He J, Mead LA, Ford DE, Pearson TA, Levine DM. Validity of physicians' self-reports of
cardiovascular disease risk factors. Annals of Epidemiology 1993;3(4):442–447. [PubMed: 8275223]
9. Thomas CB. Observations on some possible precursors of essential hypertension and coronary artery
disease. Bull Johns Hopkins Hospital 1951;89:419–441.
10. Klag M, Wang N, Meoni L, et al. Coffee intake and risk of hypertension: the Johns Hopkins precursors
study. Archives of Internal Medicine 2002;162(6):657–662. [PubMed: 11911719]
11. Klag M, Ford D, Mead L, et al. Serum Cholesterol in Young Men and Subsequent Cardiovascular
Disease. New Englan Journal of Medicine 1993;328:313–318.
12. Emanuel L, Emanuel E. The medical directive: A new comprehensive advance care document. JAMA
1989;261:3288–3293. [PubMed: 2636851]
13. Fischer G, Alpert H, Stoeckle J, Emanuel L. Can goals of care be used to predict intervention
preferences in an advance directive? Archives of Internal Medicine 1997;157(7):801–807. [PubMed:
9125014]
14. Emanuel LL, Emanuel EJ, Stoeckle JD, Hummel LR, Barry MJ. Advance directives: stability of
patients' treatment choices. Archives of Internal Medicine 1994;154:209–217. [PubMed: 8285816]
15. International Resource Center for Health Assessment A. (New England Medical Center). How to
Score the MOS 36-Item (Short Form Health Survey SF-36). 1991.
16. Stewart, AL.; Ware, JE., editors. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being. Durham, North Carolina:
Duke University Press; 1993.
17. McHorney CA. Measuring and monitoring general health status in elderly persons: practical and
methodological issues in using the SF-36 health survey. The Gerontologist 1996;36:571–583.
[PubMed: 8942101]
18. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: Reliability and validity
in a patient population. Medical Care 1988;26:724–735. [PubMed: 3393032]
19. Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al. Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic
conditions: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Journal of the American Medical Association
1989;262:907–913. [PubMed: 2754790]
Wittink et al. Page 7
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 8

20. Wells KB, Stewart A, Hays RD, et al. The functioning and well-being of depressed patients: Results
from the Medical Outcomes Study. Journal of the American Medical Association 1989;262:914–
919. [PubMed: 2754791]
21. Stadnyk K, Calder J, Rockwood K. Testing the measurement properties of the Short Form-36 health
survey in a frail elderly population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998;51:827–835. [PubMed:
9762875]
22. Lyons R, Perry I, Littlepage B. Evidence for the Validity of the Short-form 36 Questionnaire (SF-36)
in an Elderly Population. Age Ageing 1994;23:182–184. [PubMed: 8085500]
23. Singleton N, Turner A. Measuring patients' views of their health. SF 36 is suitable for elderly patients.
British Medical Journal 1993;307(6896):126–127. [PubMed: 8123095]
24. Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware JE, Barsky AJ, Weinstein MC. Performance of a five-
item mental health screening test. Medical Care 1991;29(2):169–176. [PubMed: 1994148]
25. McHorney C, Ware J, Raczek A. The MOS 36-Item Short Form health survey (SF-36): II.
Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.
Medical Care 1993;31:247–263. [PubMed: 8450681]
26. Vermunt, JK.; Magidson, J. Latent class analysis. Lewis-Beck, MS.; Bryman, A.; Liao, TF., editors.
Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications; 2004. The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Sciences Research
Methods
27. Reboussin BA, Reboussin DM, Liang KY, Anthony JC. Latent transition modeling of progression of
health-risk behavior. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1998;33(4):457–478.
28. Chung H, Park Y, Lanza ST. Latent transition analysis with covariates: Pubertal timing and substance
use behavior in adolescent females. Stat Med 2005;24:2895–2910. [PubMed: 16134129]
29. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB. Maximum liklihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm
with discussion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 1977;39:1–38.
30. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics 1978;6:461–464.
31. Velicer WF, Martin RA, Collins LM. Latent transition analysis for longitudinal data. Addiction
1996;91:197–209.
32. Jansen S, Kievit J, Nooij M, Stiggelbout A. Stability of Patients' Preferences for Chemotherapy: The
Impact of Experience. Medical Decision Making 2001;21:295–306. [PubMed: 11475386]
33. Menon AS, Campbell D, Ruskin P, Hebel JR. Depression, hopelessness, and the desire for life-saving
treatments among elderly medically ill veterans. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2000;8
(4):333–342. [PubMed: 11069274]
34. Lee M, Ganzini L. The effect of recovery from depression on preferences for life-sustaining therapy
in older patients. Journal of Gerontology 1994;49(1):M15–M21. [PubMed: 8282975]
35. Blank K, Robison J, Doherty E, Prigerson H, Duffy J, Schwartz HI. Life-sustaining treatment and
assisted death choices in depressed older patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2001;49
(2):153–161. [PubMed: 11207869]
36. Danis M, Garrett J, Harris R, Patrick DL. Stability of choices about life-substaining treatments. Annals
of Internal Medicine 1994;120(7):567–573. [PubMed: 8116994]
37. Rosenfeld KE, Wenger NS, Phillips RS, et al. Factors associated with change in resuscitation
preference of seriously ill patients. Archives of Internal Medicine 1996;156(14):1558–1564.
[PubMed: 8687264]
38. Eggar R, Spencer A, Anderson D, Hiller L. Views of elderly patients on cardiopulmonary resuscitation
before and after treatment for depression. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatrty 2002;17(2):
170–174.
39. Hakim RB, Teno JM, Harrell FE, et al. Factors associated with do-not-resuscitate orders: patients'
preferences, prognoses, and physicians' judgments. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand
Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment. Annals of Internal Medicine
1996;125(4):284–293. [PubMed: 8678391]
40. Walker RM, Schonwetter RS, Kramer DR, Robinson BE. Living wills and resuscitation preferences
in an elderly population. Archives of Internal Medicine 1995;155(2):171–175. [PubMed: 7811126]
41. Fried TR, Van Ness PH, Byers AL, Towle VR, O'Leary JR, Dubin JA. Changes in preferences for
life-sustaining treatment among older persons with advanced illness. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22(4):
495–501. [PubMed: 17372799]
Wittink et al.Page 8
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 9

42. Fried TR, Byers AL, Gallo WT, et al. Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in
preferences over time in older adults. Archives of Internal Medicine 2006;166:890–893. [PubMed:
16636215]
43. McParland E, Likourezos A, Chichin E, Castor T, Paris BE. Stability of preferences regarding life-
sustaining treatment: a two-year prospective study of nursing home residents. Mt. Sinai Journal of
Medicine 2003;70(2):85–92.
44. Ditto PH, Jacobson JA, Smucker WD, Danks JH, Fagerlin A. Context changes choices: A prospective
study of the effects of hospitalization on life-sustaining treatment preferences. Medical Decision
Making 2006;26:313–322. [PubMed: 16855121]
45. Carmel S, Mutran EJ. Stability of elderly persons' expressed preferences regarding the use of life-
sustaining treatments. Social Science & Medicine 1999;49:303–311. [PubMed: 10414816]
46. Rosenfeld KE, Wenger NS, Kagawa-Singer M. End-of-life decision making. Journal of General
Internal Medicine 2000;15:620–625. [PubMed: 11029675]
47. Rosenfeld KE, Wenger NS, Kagawa-Singer M. End-of-life decision making: A qualitative study of
elderly individuals. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2000;15:620–625. [PubMed: 11029675]
Wittink et al.Page 9
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 10

Figure.
Probability of desiring specific interventions given category of desire for aggressiveness of
care in 1999 (solid lines) and 2002 (dotted lines). Data from the Johns Hopkins Precursors
Study (1999–2002).
Wittink et al.Page 10
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Page 11

NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Wittink et al.Page 11
Table 1
Preferences for specific potentially life-sustaining treatments (in response to the hypothetical brain death scenario) in
1999 compared to preferences in 2002. Data from the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study (1999–2002). Numbers in
parentheses are row percents, stratified by whether the interventions were desired in 1999.
Desired intervention in 1999?yesyes no no
Desired intervention in 2002? yes noyes no
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
27 (42)37 (58) 48 (8) 536 (92)
Mechanical ventilation
33 (37) 56 (63) 55 (10)514 (90)
Intravenous fluids
176 (65) 95 (35)87 (23)296 (77)
Feeding tube
84 (55)68 (45) 65 (13)440 (87)
Major surgery
56 (44)70 (56)87 (17)426 (83)
Dialysis
41 (46)48 (54)62 (11) 509 (89)
Chemotherapy for cancer
45 (44)58 (56)66 (12)489 (88)
Invasive diagnostic testing
78 (59)55 (41) 84 (17) 422 (83)
Blood or blood products
106 (62) 65 (38)90 (18)398 (82)
Antibiotics
177 (69)78 (31)99 (25) 302 (75)
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.

Page 12

NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Wittink et al.Page 12
Table 2
Probability of being in a specific category in 2002 given treatment preferences in 1999. Estimated prevalence of each
category in 1999 and 2002 are shown in parentheses. Data from the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study (1999–2002).
Category of potentially-life sustaining treatment preferences in 2002 (prevalence)
Most aggressive (14%)Intermediate care (26%) Least aggressive (60%)
Most aggressive (12%)
Intermediate care (26%)
Least aggressive (62%)
0.41
0.20
0.06
0.33
0.50
0.14
0.26
0.30
0.80
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.

Page 13

NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Wittink et al. Page 13
Table 3
Association of covariates with transitions to the most aggressive category compared to the least aggressive category
(left most column) and transitions to intermediate care compared to the least aggressive category (right most column).
Table entries are odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals in brackets. Data from the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study
(1999–2002).
Transition to mostaggressive
categorycompared to
transitionto least aggressive
category
Transition tointermediate
carecategory compared
totransition to
leastaggressive category
Age 70 years and older in 1999(reference: Less than 70 years old)
Decline in mental health from 1999 to2002 of 5 points or more
(reference:Less than 5 point decline)
Decline in physical health from 1999 to2002 of 20 points or more
(reference:Less than 20 point decline)
No living will or durable power ofattorney for health care
(reference:Reports having a living will or durablepower of attorney for
health care)
0.93[0.53, 1.61]
0.88[0.46, 1.69]
1.05[0.66, 1.68]
0.68[0.37, 1.24]
0.95[0.38, 2.37] 0.86[0.40, 1.83]
1.96[1.11, 3.45] 0.98[0.58, 1.67]
Arch Intern Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 27.