Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,522

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding the Treatment Preferences of Seriously Ill Patients

Open access
Fried, Terri R., Bradley, Elizabeth H., Towle, Virginia R., Allore, Heather·2002·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The questions patients are asked about their preferences with regard to life-sustaining treatment usually focus on specific interventions, but the outcomes of treatment and their likelihood affect patients' preferences. METHODS: We administered a questionnaire about treatment preferences to 226 persons who were 60 years of age or older and who had a limited life expectancy due to cancer, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The study participants were asked whether they would want to receive a given treatment, first when the outcome was known with certainty and then with different likelihoods of an adverse outcome. The outcome without treatment was specified as death from the underlying disease. RESULTS: The burden of treatment (i.e., the length of the hospital stay, extent of testing, and invasiveness of interventions), the outcome, and the likelihood of the outcome all influenced treatment preferences. For a low-burden treatment with the restoration of current health, 98.7 percent of participants said they would choose to receive the treatment (rather than not receive it and die), but 11.2 percent of these participants would not choose the treatment if it had a high burden. If the outcome was survival but with severe functional impairment or cognitive impairment, 74.4 percent and 88.8 percent of these participants, respectively, would not choose treatment. The number of participants who said they would choose treatment declined as the likelihood of an adverse outcome increased, with fewer participants choosing treatment when the possible outcome was functional or cognitive impairment than when it was death. Preferences did not differ according to the primary diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Advance care planning should take into account patients' attitudes toward the burden of treatment, the possible outcomes, and their likelihood. The likelihood of adverse functional and cognitive outcomes of treatment requires explicit consideration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsa012528

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,522

Metadata

Authors
Fried, T. R., Bradley, E. H., Towle, V. R., & Allore, H.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2002-04-04
Volume
346
Issue
14
Pages
1061-1066
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2084450115
Cited by
1,522
References
1
FWCI
37.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding the Treatment Preferences of Seriously Ill Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsa012528
The paper
Fried, T. R., Bradley, E. H., Towle, V. R., & Allore, H. (2002). Understanding the Treatment Preferences of Seriously Ill Patients. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa012528

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.