Table 8.
Impact of the advance care planning intervention on latent transitions of end-of-life treatment preference congruence from Time1 to Time2 using Multinomial Logistic Model (N = 199)a
| Predictor b | Latent transition of treatment preference congruence |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| High → low vs. low → low AOR (95% CI) |
High → high vs. low → low AOR (95 % CI) |
High → low vs. high → high AOR (95% CI) |
|
| Intervention group | |||
| Healthy living control | – | – | – |
| Advance care planning | 3.87 (1.41, 10.65)c | 7.91 (3.08, 20.31)c | 0.49 (0.22, 1.1) |
| Gender | |||
| Female | – | – | – |
| Male | 1.39 (0.44, 4.46) | 1.13 (0.38, 3.37) | 1.24 (0.53,2.86) |
| Race | |||
| Non-Black | – | – | – |
| Black | 0.13 (0.01, 1.38) | 0.15 (0.02, 1.37) | 0.89 (0.29, 2.73) |
| Age | |||
| Young Adult (22–39 years) | – | – | – |
| Adult (40–60 years) | 1.23 (0.33, 4.58) | 1.04 (0.31, 3.49) | 1.18 (0.44, 3.14) |
| Oldest Adults (61–77 years) | 0.84 (0.17, 4.02) | 0.97 (0.24, 4.03) | 0.86 (0.26, 2.85) |
| Education | |||
| Some college or higher | – | – | – |
| High school or lower | 2.18 (0.76, 6.25) | 2.53 (0.94, 6.85) | 0.86 (0.39, 1.88) |
| Income | |||
| Equal, below federal poverty line | – | – | – |
| Higher than federal poverty line | 1.23 (0.39, 3.85) | 1.82 (0.63, 5.27) | 0.67 (0.29, 1.55) |
| Unknown/unreported | 0.93 (0.24, 3.54) | 1.04 (0.3, 3.6) | 0.9 (0.33, 2.46) |
| Sexual orientation | |||
| Non-Heterosexual | – | – | – |
| Heterosexual | 2.65 (0.75, 9.39) | 0.67 (0.23, 2.01) | 3.93 (1.5, 10.28)c |
Time1 Immediately post-intervention. Time2 Twelve months post-intervention, AOR Adjusted Odds Ratio, CI confidence interval, H high, L low
a
Latent transition Low → High Congruence (N = 2) was excluded
b
Patient demographic characteristics
c
Statistically significant at α = 0.05 using Wald chi-square test