The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Elderly Veterans' Beliefs Concerning Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Control of Their End-of-Life Health and Health Care
Abstract
Objective: This study used qualitative methods to explore patients' beliefs about control of their end-of-life health and health care. Method: The authors recruited 30 elderly patients from a large, urban Veterans Administration medical center in the United States and engaged them in semistructured interviews about end-of-life care concepts. Using grounded theory methods, they coded, categorized, and compared responses. Results: The authors discovered that patients' decisions about using life sustaining treatment were interconnected with their beliefs about their degree of control over circumstances and the role of external factors, including a higher power; institutions and individuals; medical interventions; medical conditions; and luck, chance, or fate. Discussion: The results shed light on why patients do or do not take active roles in advance decisions concerning the use of life-sustaining treatment.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“patients appeared to have a general disposition towards maximal escalation, but like other studies [16, 51] lacked specific knowledge about TEPs and did not anticipate the conversation when meant that they were ill-prepared for a meaningful exchange.”
In the citing paper
“patients appeared to have a general disposition towards maximal escalation, but like other studies [16, 51] lacked specific knowledge about TEPs and did not anticipate the conversation when meant that they were ill-prepared for a meaningful exchange.”
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 52
- 10.1177/1359105305055318 · DOI
- 10.1177/1359105305055310 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-6133.16.2.179 · DOI
- 10.1001/archinte.1994.00420180053007 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1359105305055326 · DOI
- 10.1300/J074v16n01_11 · DOI
- 10.1080/00223980.1991.10543300 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1474-5151(02)00049-X · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.12.009 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-006X.59.3.419 · DOI
- 10.1080/07481180050045656 · DOI
- Crabtree, B. F., 1992, Doing qualitative research
- Department of Veterans Affairs, 2001, VetPop 2001 adj
- Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, 2000, Advance health care planning (advance directives)
- Duffield, P., 1998, American Journal of Nursing, 98, 16
- Duffield, P., 1996, Journal of Family Practice, 42, 378
- 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00262.x · DOI
- Glaser, B. G., 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research
- 10.1525/aeq.1981.12.1.05x1283i · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.42.2.322 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1982.tb00441.x · DOI
- Lefcourt, H. M., 1981, Research with the locus of control construct: Vol. 1. Assessment methods
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50013-7 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0035357 · DOI
- 10.1080/00223891.1974.10119988 · DOI
- 10.1177/1359105305055307 · DOI
- 10.1177/1359105305055311 · DOI
- 10.1177/1359105305055332 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.016 · DOI
- 10.1177/1359105305055324 · DOI
- Patton, M. Q., 2001, Qualitative research and evaluation methods
- 10.1037/0022-3514.44.6.1253 · DOI
- 10.1370/afm.42 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00080-1 · DOI
- Ragin, C. C., 1989, The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies
- Ramos-Remus, C., 1999, Journal of Rheumatology, 26, 2468
- 10.1037/10788-000 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0092976 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0306-4603(94)90046-9 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.603 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.540 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.293 · DOI
- 10.1097/00002820-200407000-00008 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF01173488 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1018723010685 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_10 · DOI
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-443201-7.50010-5 · DOI · Paper page
- Wallston, K. A., 1982, Social psychology of health and illness, 65
- 10.1177/109019817800600107 · DOI · Paper page
- Wallston, K. A., 1976, Journal of Consultative and Clinical Psychology, 44, 280, 10.1037/0022-006X.44.2.280 · DOI
- 10.3928/0098-9134-20040701-05 · DOI
Cited by
Warner, B. E., Wells, M., Vindrola-Padros, C., & Brett, S. J. (2025) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06893-7
“As with Timmer-mans [9], patients appeared to have a general disposition towards maximal escalation, but like other studies [16, 51] lacked specific knowledge about TEPs and did not anticipate the conversation when meant that they were ill-prepared for a meaningful exchange.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Rodriguez, K. L., & Young, A. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- University of Memphis (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Aging and Health
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 686-706
- ISSN
- 0898-2643 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6887
- OpenAlex
- W2000481842
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Aging and Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Keywords
- older veterans, end-of-life care, life-sustaining treatment, patient beliefs, advance care planning, decision-making, spirituality, fatalism
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Humans, Life Support Care, Terminal Care, United States, Veterans, Personal Autonomy
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
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.
