Associations between physicians' personal preferences for end-of-life decisions and their own clinical practice: PROPEL survey study in Europe, North America, and Australia.
Sarah Mroz, Frederick Daenen, Sigrid Dierickx, Freddy Mortier, Ludovica De Panfilis, James Downar, Julie Lapenskie, Koby Anderson, Anna Skold, Courtney Campbell, Toby C Campbell, Rachel Feeney, Lindy Willmott, Ben P White, Kenneth Chambaere, Luc Deliens
{"title":"Associations between physicians' personal preferences for end-of-life decisions and their own clinical practice: PROPEL survey study in Europe, North America, and Australia.","authors":"Sarah Mroz, Frederick Daenen, Sigrid Dierickx, Freddy Mortier, Ludovica De Panfilis, James Downar, Julie Lapenskie, Koby Anderson, Anna Skold, Courtney Campbell, Toby C Campbell, Rachel Feeney, Lindy Willmott, Ben P White, Kenneth Chambaere, Luc Deliens","doi":"10.1177/02692163241300853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physicians have significant influence on end-of-life decisions. Therefore, it is important to understand the connection between physicians' personal end-of-life care preferences and clinical practice, and whether there is congruence between what they prefer for themselves and for patients.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Study to what extent physicians believe their personal end-of-life preferences impact their clinical practice and to what extent physicians' personal treatment option preferences differ from what they prefer for their patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 2022 to February 2023.</p><p><strong>Setting/participants: </strong>Eight jurisdictions: Belgium, Italy, Canada, USA (Oregon, Wisconsin, and Georgia), and Australia (Victoria and Queensland). Three physician types were included: general practitioners, palliative care physicians, and other medical specialists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 1157 survey responses. Sixty-two percent of physicians acknowledge considering their own preferences when caring for patients at the end of life and 29.7% believe their personal preferences impact the recommendations they make. Palliative care physicians are less likely to consider their own preferences when caring for and making recommendations to patients. Congruence was found between what physicians prefer for patients and themselves with cardiopulmonary resuscitation considered \"not a good option for both\" by 99.1% of physicians. Incongruence was found with physicians considering some options \"not good for the patient, but good for themselves\"-palliative sedation (8.3%), physician-assisted suicide (7.0%), and euthanasia (11.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Physicians consider their own preferences when providing care and their preferences impact the recommendations they make to patients. Incongruence exists between what physicians prefer for themselves and what they prefer for patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19849,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"266-276"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163241300853","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Physicians have significant influence on end-of-life decisions. Therefore, it is important to understand the connection between physicians' personal end-of-life care preferences and clinical practice, and whether there is congruence between what they prefer for themselves and for patients.
Aim: Study to what extent physicians believe their personal end-of-life preferences impact their clinical practice and to what extent physicians' personal treatment option preferences differ from what they prefer for their patients.
Design: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 2022 to February 2023.
Setting/participants: Eight jurisdictions: Belgium, Italy, Canada, USA (Oregon, Wisconsin, and Georgia), and Australia (Victoria and Queensland). Three physician types were included: general practitioners, palliative care physicians, and other medical specialists.
Results: We analyzed 1157 survey responses. Sixty-two percent of physicians acknowledge considering their own preferences when caring for patients at the end of life and 29.7% believe their personal preferences impact the recommendations they make. Palliative care physicians are less likely to consider their own preferences when caring for and making recommendations to patients. Congruence was found between what physicians prefer for patients and themselves with cardiopulmonary resuscitation considered "not a good option for both" by 99.1% of physicians. Incongruence was found with physicians considering some options "not good for the patient, but good for themselves"-palliative sedation (8.3%), physician-assisted suicide (7.0%), and euthanasia (11.6%).
Conclusion: Physicians consider their own preferences when providing care and their preferences impact the recommendations they make to patients. Incongruence exists between what physicians prefer for themselves and what they prefer for patients.
期刊介绍：
Palliative Medicine is a highly ranked, peer reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to improving knowledge and clinical practice in the palliative care of patients with far advanced disease. This outstanding journal features editorials, original papers, review articles, case reports, correspondence and book reviews. Essential reading for all members of the palliative care team. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
