Responders and non-responders in a study on medical end-of-life decisions in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland

Summary.: Objectives: To determine the direction and magnitude of participation bias in end-of-life research. Methods: Within the framework of a European survey on medical end-of-life decisions, a non-response study was conducted among physicians in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. People were asked about their attitudes and experiences in the area of medial end-of-life decision. The response rates ranged from 12.8% (Netherlands) to 39.4% (Switzerland). The responders (n = 5 403) and the non-responders (n = 866) were compared regarding socio-demographic characteristics, experiences with terminal patients and agreement with attitudes towards "end-of-life decisions”. The reasons for non-participation to the study were analyzed. Results: Non-response did not cause socio-demographic distortion, but non-responders had statistically significantly fewer terminal patients than responders. Agreement rates were statistically significantly higher among responders than among non-responders for euthanasia, non-treatment decision and life-preserving statements. Neutral answers were statistically significantly more frequent among non-responders than among responders for life-preserving and euthanasia statements. The most commonly mentioned reason for non-participation was "lack of time”. Conclusion: Non-participation does cause an overestimation of proponents of life-shortening, as well as of life-preserving end-of-life decisions. Non-responders more often have ambiguous attitudes towards end-of-life decisions than responder

Bedside rationing by general practitioners: A postal survey in the Danish public healthcare system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is ethically controversial whether medical doctors are morally permitted to ration the care of their patients at the bedside. To explore whether general practitioners in fact do ration in this manner we conducted a study within primary care in the Danish public healthcare system. The purpose of the study was to measure the extent to which general practitioners (GPs) would be willing to factor in cost-quality trade-offs when prescribing medicine, and to discover whether, and if so to what extent, they believe that patients should be informed about this.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Postal survey of 600 randomly selected Danish GPs, of which 330 responded to the questionnaire. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 14.0) was used to produce general descriptive statistics. Significance was calculated with the McNemar and the chi-square test. The main outcome measures of the study were twofold: an assessment of the proportion of GPs who, in a mainly hypothetical setting, would consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given their economic impact on the healthcare system; and a measure of the extent to which they would disclose this information to patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the hypothetical setting 95% of GPs considered cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. In all 90% stated that this consideration had been relevant in clinical decision-making within the last month. In the hypothetical setting 55% would inform their patients that they considered a cost-quality trade-off relevant to their clinical decisions given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. The most common reason (68%) given for not wanting to inform patients about this matter was the belief that the information would not prove useful to patients. In the hypothetical setting cost-quality trade-offs were considered relevant significantly more often in connection with concerns about costs to the patient (86%) than they were in connection with concerns about costs to the healthcare system (55%; p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although readiness to consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to clinical decisions is prevalent among GPs in Denmark, only half of GPs would disclose to patients that they consider this relevant to their clinical decision-making. The results of this study raise two important ethical problems. First, under Danish law physicians are required to inform patients about all equal treatments. The fact that only a few GPs would inform their patients about all of the relevant treatments therefore seems to contravene Danish law. Second, it is ethically controversial that physicians act as economic gatekeepers.</p

Physicians' experiences with end-of-life decision-making: Survey in 6 European countries and Australia

Background: In this study we investigated (a) to what extent physicians have experience with performing a range of end-of-life decisions (ELDs), (b) if they have no experience with performing an ELD, would they be willing to do so under certain conditions and (c) which background characteristics are associated with having experience with/or being willing to make such ELDs. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 16,486 physicians from specialities in which death is common: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. Results: The response rate differed between countries (39–68%). The experience of foregoing life-sustaining treatment ranged between 37% and 86%: intensifying the alleviation of pain or other symptoms while taking into account possible hastening of death between 57% and 95%, and experience with deep sedation until death between 12% and 46%. Receiving a request for hastening death differed between 34% and 71%, and intentionally hastening death on the explicit request of a patient between 1% and 56%. Conclusion: There are differences between countries in experiences with ELDs, in willingness to perform ELDs and in receiving requests for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Foregoing treatment and intensifying alleviation of pain and symptoms are practiced and accepted by most physicians in all countries. Physicians with training in palliative care are more inclined to perform ELDs, as are those who attend to higher numbers of terminal patients. Thus, this seems not to be only a matter of opportunity, but also a matter of attitude