The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-015-0064-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
MMH designed the study, performed data analysis, and wrote the manuscript. EAQ collected data and participated in study design and literature review. SH participated in data analysis and literature review and co-wrote the manuscript. SA participated in data collection, study design, and literature review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Quality end-of-life care depends on understanding patients’ end-of-life choices. Individuals and cultures may hold end-of-life priorities at different hierarchy. Forced ranking rather than independent rating, and by-person factor analysis rather than averaging may reveal otherwise masked typologies.
We explored Saudi males’ forced-ranked, end-of-life priorities and dis-priorities. Respondents (n = 120) rank-ordered 47 opinion statements on end-of-life care following a 9-category symmetrical distribution. Statements’ scores were analyzed by averaging analysis and factor analysis (Q-methodology).
Respondents’ mean age was 32.1 years (range, 18–65); 52 % reported average religiosity, 88 and 83 % ≥ very good health and life-quality, respectively, and 100 % ≥ high school education. Averaging analysis revealed that the extreme five end-of-life priorities were to, be at peace with God, be able to say the statement of faith, maintain dignity, resolve conflicts, and have religious death rituals respected, respectively. The extreme five dis-priorities were to, die in the hospital, not receive intensive care if in coma, die at peak of life, be informed about impending death by family/friends rather than doctor, and keep medical status confidential from family/friends, respectively. Q-methodology classified 67 % of respondents into five highly transcendent opinion types. Type-I (rituals-averse, family-caring, monitoring-coping, life-quality-concerned) and Type-V (rituals-apt, family-centered, neutral-coping, life-quantity-concerned) reported the lowest and highest religiosity, respectively. Type-II (rituals-apt, family-dependent, monitoring-coping, life-quantity-concerned) and Type-III (rituals-silent, self/family-neutral, avoidance-coping, life-quality & quantity-concerned) reported the best and worst life-quality, respectively. Type-I respondents were the oldest with the lowest general health, in contrast to Type-IV (rituals-apt, self-centered, monitoring-coping, life-quality/quantity-neutral). Of the extreme 14 priorities/dis-priorities for the five types, 29, 14, 14, 50, and 36 %, respectively, were not among the extreme 20 priorities/dis-priorities identified by averaging analysis for the entire cohort.
1) Transcendence was the extreme end-of-life priority, and dying in the hospital was the extreme dis-priority. 2) Quality of life was conceptualized differently with less emphasize on its physiological aspects. 3) Disclosure of terminal illness to family/close friends was preferred as long it is through the patient. 4) Q-methodology identified five types of constellations of end-of-life priorities and dis-priorities that may be related to respondents’ demographics and are partially masked by averaging analysis.
The SUPPORT Principle Investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatment (SUPPORT). JAMA. 1995;274(20):1591–8. CrossRef
Field MJ, Cassel CK, editors. Approaching death: Improving care at the end of life. Washington: National Academy Press, Institute of Medicine; 1997.
Stajduhar KI, Allan DE, Cohen SR, Heyland DK. Preferences for location of death of seriously ill patients: perspectives from Canadian patients and their family caregivers. Palliative Med. 2008;22:85–8. CrossRef
Vig EK, Pearlman RA. Good and bad dying from the perspective of terminally ill men. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:977e981. CrossRef
Pierson CM, Curtis JR, Patrick DL. A good death: a qualitative study of patients with advanced AIDS. AIDS Care. 2002;14:587e598. CrossRef
Engelberg RA, Patrick DL, Curtis JR. Correspondence between patients’ preferences and surrogates’ understandings for dying and death. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30:498e509. CrossRef
Miccinesi G, Bianchi E, Brunelli C, Borreani C. End-of-life preferences in advanced cancer patients willing to discuss issues surrounding their terminal condition. European J Cancer Care. 2012;21:623–33. CrossRef
Coffey A, McCarthy G, Weathers E, Friedman MI, Gallo K, Ehrenfeld M, et al. Nurses’ preferred end-of-life treatment choices in five countries. Int Nurs Revi. 2013;60(3):313–9. CrossRef
Harding R, Simms V, Calanzani N, Higginson IJ, Hall S, Gysels M, et al. If you had less than a year to live, would you want to know? A seven-country European population survey of public preferences for disclosure of poor prognosis. Psychooncology. 2013;22(10):2298–305. PubMed
Higginson IJ, Gomes B, Calanzani N, Gao W, Bausewein C, Daveson BA, et al. Priorities for treatment, care and information if faced with serious illness: a comparative population-based survey in seven European countries. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):101–10. doi: 10.1177/0269216313488989. CrossRefPubMed
McKeown Band Thomas D. Q methodology. Newbury Park: Sage publications; 1988. CrossRef
Thomas DM, Watson RT. Q-sorting and MIS research: a primer. Comm Assoc Info Syst. 2002;8:141–56.
Hall ET. Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday; 1976.
Kue BCH. Culture’s consequences on coping: theories, evidences, and dimensionalities. J Cross-Cultural Psychol. 2011;42(6):1084–100. CrossRef
Del Pozo PR, Fins JJ. Islam and informed consent: notes from Doha. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17(3):273–9. PubMed
Fowler FJ, Coppola KM, Teno JM. Methodological challenges for measuring quality of care at the end of life. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999;17:114e119. CrossRef
- Exploring end of life priorities in Saudi males: usefulness of Q-methodology
Muhammad M. Hammami
Eman Al Gaai
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II