Differing needs for Advance Care Planning in the Veterans Health Administration: use of latent class analysis to identify subgroups to enhance Advance Care Planning via Group Visits for veterans.
Monica M Matthieu, Songthip T Ounpraseuth, J Silas Williams, Bo Hu, David A Adkins, Ciara M Oliver, Laura D Taylor, Jane Ann McCullough, Mary J Mallory, Ian D Smith, Jack H Suarez, Kimberly K Garner
{"title":"Differing needs for Advance Care Planning in the Veterans Health Administration: use of latent class analysis to identify subgroups to enhance Advance Care Planning via Group Visits for veterans.","authors":"Monica M Matthieu, Songthip T Ounpraseuth, J Silas Williams, Bo Hu, David A Adkins, Ciara M Oliver, Laura D Taylor, Jane Ann McCullough, Mary J Mallory, Ian D Smith, Jack H Suarez, Kimberly K Garner","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01117-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advance Care Planning via Group Visits (ACP-GV) is a patient-centered intervention facilitated by a clinician using a group modality to promote healthcare decision-making among veterans. Participants in the group document a \"Next Step\" to use in planning for their future care needs. The next step may include documentation of preferences in an advance directive, discussing plans with family, or anything else to fulfill their ACP needs. This evaluation seeks to determine whether there are identifiable subgroups of group participants with differing needs prior to delivery of the ACP-GV program and, if so, to use information about the subgroups to enhance the program offered to veterans in United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of national data from a quality improvement evaluation. Patient- and provider-level data from administrative healthcare records for VA users in all 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia provides data on veterans attending ACP-GV during federal fiscal years 2018-2022 (N = 26,857). Latent class analysis seeks to identify the various subgroups of veterans based on their level of ACP self-efficacy before attending ACP-GV and any demographic differences across the resulting subgroups of veterans attending ACP-GV. ACP self-efficacy is derived from seven items obtained from a participant worksheet used during the group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis revealed two distinct groups of veterans, distinguishable by their pre-ACP-GV levels of one aspect of ACP self-efficacy: prior knowledge of ACP. Veterans with higher prior knowledge of ACP are associated with an identified next step focused on checking their current AD status and updating it, and veterans with lower ACP prior knowledge are associated with identifying a next step to discuss ACP more fully with family. Differences in age, sex, race, ethnicity, and marital status exist across subgroups of veterans.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Greater attention must be paid to ACP and veterans' prior knowledge of ACP to consistently encourage annual review and status updates.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11514638/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01117-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Advance Care Planning via Group Visits (ACP-GV) is a patient-centered intervention facilitated by a clinician using a group modality to promote healthcare decision-making among veterans. Participants in the group document a "Next Step" to use in planning for their future care needs. The next step may include documentation of preferences in an advance directive, discussing plans with family, or anything else to fulfill their ACP needs. This evaluation seeks to determine whether there are identifiable subgroups of group participants with differing needs prior to delivery of the ACP-GV program and, if so, to use information about the subgroups to enhance the program offered to veterans in United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare settings.
Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of national data from a quality improvement evaluation. Patient- and provider-level data from administrative healthcare records for VA users in all 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia provides data on veterans attending ACP-GV during federal fiscal years 2018-2022 (N = 26,857). Latent class analysis seeks to identify the various subgroups of veterans based on their level of ACP self-efficacy before attending ACP-GV and any demographic differences across the resulting subgroups of veterans attending ACP-GV. ACP self-efficacy is derived from seven items obtained from a participant worksheet used during the group.
Results: Analysis revealed two distinct groups of veterans, distinguishable by their pre-ACP-GV levels of one aspect of ACP self-efficacy: prior knowledge of ACP. Veterans with higher prior knowledge of ACP are associated with an identified next step focused on checking their current AD status and updating it, and veterans with lower ACP prior knowledge are associated with identifying a next step to discuss ACP more fully with family. Differences in age, sex, race, ethnicity, and marital status exist across subgroups of veterans.
Conclusion: Greater attention must be paid to ACP and veterans' prior knowledge of ACP to consistently encourage annual review and status updates.
期刊介绍:
BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.