Development and validation of a questionnaire to detect behavior change in multiple advance care planning behaviors

Rebecca L Sudore, Anita L Stewart, Sara J Knight, Ryan D McMahan, Mariko Feuz, Yinghui Miao, Deborah E Barnes, Rebecca L Sudore, Anita L Stewart, Sara J Knight, Ryan D McMahan, Mariko Feuz, Yinghui Miao, Deborah E Barnes

Abstract

Introduction: Advance directives have traditionally been considered the gold standard for advance care planning. However, recent evidence suggests that advance care planning involves a series of multiple discrete behaviors for which people are in varying stages of behavior change. The goal of our study was to develop and validate a survey to measure the full advance care planning process.

Methods: The Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey assesses "Process Measures" of factors known from Behavior Change Theory to affect behavior (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy, and readiness, using 5-point Likert scales) and "Action Measures" (yes/no) of multiple behaviors related to surrogate decision makers, values and quality of life, flexibility for surrogate decision making, and informed decision making. We administered surveys at baseline and 1 week later to 50 diverse, older adults from San Francisco hospitals. Internal consistency reliability of Process Measures was assessed using Cronbach's alpha (only continuous variables) and test-retest reliability of Process and Action Measures was examined using intraclass correlations. For discriminant validity, we compared Process and Action Measure scores between this cohort and 20 healthy college students (mean age 23.2 years, SD 2.7).

Results: Mean age was 69.3 (SD 10.5) and 42% were non-White. The survey took a mean of 21.4 minutes (±6.2) to administer. The survey had good internal consistency (Process Measures Cronbach's alpha, 0.94) and test-retest reliability (Process Measures intraclass correlation, 0.70; Action Measures, 0.87). Both Process and Action Measure scores were higher in the older than younger group, p<.001.

Conclusion: A new Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey that measures behavior change (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy, and readiness) and multiple advance care planning actions demonstrates good reliability and validity. Further research is needed to assess whether survey scores improve in response to advance care planning interventions and whether scores are associated with receipt of care consistent with one's wishes.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. *Each Behavioral Change Process factor…
Figure 1. *Each Behavioral Change Process factor (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy, and readiness) affects engagement in each of the 4 advance care planning domains (Decision Makers (DM), Quality of life (QOL), Flexibility, and Asking Questions) including the distinct planning behaviors within those domains, such as how informed one feels about DM (knowledge), how much one has thought about DM (contemplation), how confident one feels to ask a DM (self-efficacy), and how ready one feels to ask a DM (readiness).
Engagement in these Behavioral Change Processes can then lead to Action pertaining to each of the 4 advance care planning domains, including individual behaviors within those domains, such as whether the participant actually decided on, asked, discussed, and/or documented their preferred DM.

References

    1. Sudore RL, Fried TR (2010) Redefining the “planning” in advance care planning: preparing for end-of-life decision making. Ann Intern Med 153: 256–261.
    1. Ramsaroop SD, Reid MC, Adelman RD (2007) Completing an advance directive in the primary care setting: what do we need for success? J Am Geriatr Soc 55: 277–283.
    1. Fried TR, Redding CA, Robbins ML, Paiva A, O'Leary JR, et al. (2010) Stages of change for the component behaviors of advance care planning. J Am Geriatr Soc 58: 2329–2336.
    1. Sudore RL, Schickedanz AD, Landefeld CS, Williams BA, Lindquist K, et al. (2008) Engagement in multiple steps of the advance care planning process: a descriptive study of diverse older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 56: 1006–1013.
    1. Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84: 191–215.
    1. Street RL Jr (2003) Interpersonal Communication Skills in Health Care Contexts. In: Greene JO, Burleson BR, editors. Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills. p. 909–33. Mawah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 909–933 p.
    1. Spitzburgh BH, Cupach WR (1984) Interpersonal Communication Competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    1. McMahan RD, Knight SJ, Fried TR, Sudore RL (2012) Advance Care Planning Beyond Advance Directives: Perspectives From Patients and Surrogates. J Pain Symptom Manage.
    1. Sudore RL, Schillinger D (2009) Interventions to Improve Care for Patients with Limited Health Literacy. J Clin Outcomes Manag 16: 20–29.
    1. Schickedanz A, Schillinger D, Landefeld CS, Lindquist K, Williams BS, et al... (2007) Barriers to Advance Care Planning Among Diverse Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 55: S2, P6.
    1. Pfeiffer E (1975) A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 23: 433–441.
    1. Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P (1997) The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res 29: 21–43.
    1. Sudore RL, Landefeld CS, Barnes DE, Lindquist K, Williams BA, et al. (2007) An advance directive redesigned to meet the literacy level of most adults: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns 69: 165–195.
    1. Sarkar U, Schillinger D, Lopez A, Sudore R (2011) Validation of self-reported health literacy questions among diverse English and Spanish-speaking populations. J Gen Intern Med 26: 265–271.
    1. Koning AJ, Francses PH (2003) Confidence Intervals for Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha Values. ERIM Report Series Reference No. ERS-2003–041-MKT.
    1. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE (1992) Methods of constructing health measures. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring functioning and well-being. Durham, NC: Duke University Press: 67.
    1. Lance CE, Butts MM, Michaels LC (2006) The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say? Organizational Research Methods 9: 202–220.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass Correlations: Uses in Assessing Rater Reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86: 420–428.
    1. Hankinson SE, Manson JE, Spiegelman D, Willett WC, Longcope C, et al. (1995) Reproducibility of plasma hormone levels in postmenopausal women over a 2–3-year period. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 4: 649–654.
    1. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2000) Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. New Jersey Prentice Hall, Inc.
    1. Sudore RL, Landefeld CS, Pantilat SZ, Noyes KM, Schillinger D (2008) Reach and impact of a mass media event among vulnerable patients: the Terri Schiavo story. J Gen Intern Med 23: 1854–1857.
    1. Fried TR, Redding CA, Robbins ML, Paiva A, O'Leary JR, et al. (2012) Promoting advance care planning as health behavior change: development of scales to assess Decisional Balance, Medical and Religious Beliefs, and Processes of Change. Patient Educ Couns 86: 25–32.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa