Table 2.
Multivariable | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome | Covariate | B | SE | p | Exp (B) |
Decisional conflict | Quality of general communication | −1.47 | 0.68 | 0.030 | 0.23 |
Family member age | −0.35 | 0.03 | 0.242 | 0.97 | |
Family member gender | |||||
Family member income | |||||
Family member education | |||||
Family member religious values | |||||
R2 | 0.23 | ||||
n | 49 | ||||
Decisional conflict | Quality of end-of-life communication | −0.34 | 0.14 | 0.014 | 0.71 |
Family member age | −0.03 | 0.03 | 0.286 | 0.97 | |
Family member gender | |||||
Family member income | |||||
Family member education | |||||
Family member religious values | |||||
R2 | 0.29 | ||||
n | 49 |
The dependent variable in this analysis is decisional conflict coded so that 0 = “Little to no conflict” and 1 = “Moderate to high conflict. “The healthcare team didn't do this” was coded as a rating of 0. “I don't know” was coded as missing. The subscales: the General Communication Subscale (items 1–6) and the End-of-life Communication Subscale (items 7–13) had response options that ranged from 0 = “poor” to 10 = “absolutely perfect.” The middle of the scale with the value of 5 = “very good.”27