4.5 Article

Pathways From Religion to Advance Care Planning: Beliefs About Control Over Length of Life and End-of-Life Values

Journal

GERONTOLOGIST
Volume 53, Issue 5, Pages 801-816

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geront/gns128

Keywords

Advance directive; living wills; durable power of attorney for healthcare

Categories

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG023958] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [T32 MH16242-29] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of the Study: To evaluate the extent to which religious affiliation and self-identified religious importance affect advance care planning (ACP) via beliefs about control over life length and end-of-life values. Design and Methods: Three hundred and five adults aged 55 and older from diverse racial and socioeconomic groups seeking outpatient care in New Jersey were surveyed. Measures included discussion of end-of-life preferences; living will (LW) completion; durable power of attorney for healthcare (DPAHC) appointment; religious affiliation; importance of religion; and beliefs about who/what controls life length, end-of-life values, health status, and sociodemographics. Results: Of the sample, 68.9% had an informal discussion and 46.2% both discussed their preferences and did formal ACP (LW and/or DPAHC). Conservative Protestants and those placing great importance on religion/spirituality had a lower likelihood of ACP. These associations were largely accounted for by beliefs about God's controlling life length and values for using all available treatments. Implications: Beliefs and values about control account for relationships between religiosity and ACP. Beliefs and some values differ by religious affiliation. As such, congregations may be one nonclinical setting in which ACP discussions could be held, as individuals with similar attitudes toward the end of life could discuss their treatment preferences with those who share their views.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available