2005 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Research on Advance directives of Amyotrophic Lateral sclerosis Patient and QOL
| Project/Area Number |
16590417
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Medical sociology
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Tohoku University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
ITO Michiya Tohoku University, Graduate School of Medicine, Lecturer, 大学院・医学系研究科, 講師 (70221083)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
KOINUMA Nobuo Tohoku University, Graduate School of Medicine, Professor, 大学院・医学系研究科, 教授 (60134095)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2004 – 2005
|
| Keywords | Advance directives / Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis / Self-determination / QOL / Guideline / Legislation / Legal basis / Informed consent |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
Research on Advance directives of Amyotrophic Lateral sclerosis Patient and QOL
Result: (1)The merit (multiple answers) of Advance directives is order (18%"talks are made in order to fulfill his hope", 16% "it complies with his/her request and medical treatment is advanced", 15%"contents of self-determination are shared", 14% "that communication of his/her, family, and medical stuff becomes good", and 12% "it is not forced medical treatment which is not desired" ), in patients' reply (N=300). It is the same as that also of nurses (N=305) and doctors (N=265) reply almost. (2) Although the prevention factor (multiple answers) through which Advance directives do not spread was the order of "only a doctor may decide treatment policy", "it not having got used to self-determination", "it not being well-known to a decision content", "the form not being standardized", and there "there being no legal basis" in the patient reply, the tendency to regard as questionable what "no legal basis is" was seen in the doctor. (3) About the policy of Advance directives spread, although (multiple answers) are 11% of order "which checks renewal of contents, and rewriting" in a patient reply 24% "information is made substantial", and 18% "which promotes a notice", subsequently to 19% "which promotes a notice", the doctor attaches importance to "legal-basis" 17%. (4) Although it is the presentation method of Advance directives, in the patient reply, it is the order of "oral", a "document", "the original form of a hospital", and a "handwriting memorandum", and the document has rivaled oral mostly. Maximum is 3 times although about 30 % has answered by the patient reply that the existence of rewriting of the contents of Advance directives.
|
