Skip to main content

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of preference scores, internal consistency and concurrent validation parameters

From: Measuring patients’ medical treatment preferences in advance care planning: development and validation of the Treat-Me-ACP instrument – a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

 

Preference scores

Internal consistency

Association of preference scores and global medical care goal

Association of scenario preference scores and how would you feel-items

 

Preference scores T0

Mean (SD) changes (T0-T2) in preference scores

   

Preference score scale

n

Mean (SD) T0

IG

CG

Cronbach’s α

n

Cramér’s V

Significance

n

Cramér’s V

Significance

Scenario

S1 – Current health status

69

11.6 (4.7)

-2.2 (3.4)

-1.2 (3.2)

0.718

66

0.596

0.136

69

0.805

0.103

S2 – Advanced dementia

69

5.6 (5.4)

-1.4 (4.5)

0.3 (5.4)

0.828

67

0.721

0.003

68

0.748

< 0.001

S3 – Stroke with paralysis

70

6.1 (5.6)

-2.0 (4.0)

-1.2 (5.6)

0.838

68

0.636

0.051

68

0.889

< 0.001

S4 – Stroke with six weeks coma

71

4.9 (5.6)

-1.5 (3.7)

-0.8 (4.9)

0.875

69

0.643

0.012

70

0.700

< 0.001

S5 – Incurable brain tumor

66

3.9 (4.9)

-1.2 (3.2)

-1.9 (4.8)

0.838

64

0.534

0.195

65

0.836

< 0.001

Treatment

TP1– Antibiotics

70

9.9 (5.8)

-1.5 (5.3)

-0.2 (4.6)

0.812

68

0.568

0.144

   

TP2 – Resuscitation

69

5.0 (5.6)

-1.4 (2.1)

-1.4 (3.7)

0.854

67

0.694

0.002

   

TP3 – Cholecystec-tomy

65

9.7 (6.1)

-2.9 (6.1)

-1.7 (5.1)

0.856

63

0.617

0.198

   

TP4 – Temporary artificial nutrition

72

5.7 (6.4)

-3.3 (5.3)

-1.1 (5.9)

0.918

70

0.684

0.026

   

TP5 – Permanent artificial nutrition

71

1.7 (4.2)

-0.2 (2.3)

0.7 (2.1)

0.962

69

0.696

< 0.001

   
  1. Note: The minimum value of the preference scores is 0; the maximum value is 20. The higher the preference scores, the stronger the preference for life-sustaining treatments.