BioMed Research International
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 453932, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/453932

Research Article

Attitudes towards Advance Care Planning and Healthcare Autonomy among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Beijing, China

Ning Zhang,¹ Xiao-hong Ning,¹ Ming-lei Zhu,¹ Xiao-hong Liu,¹ Jing-bing Li,² and Qian Liu³

¹Department of Geriatrics, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China
²Department of Neurology, Hebei Geriatric Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China
³Department of Geriatrics, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Received 31 August 2015; Revised 21 November 2015; Accepted 2 December 2015

Academic Editor: Etsuko Aruga

Copyright © 2015 Ning Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Objectives. To investigate the preferences of ACP and healthcare autonomy in community-dwelling older Chinese adults. Methods. A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted with older adults living in the residential estate of Chaoyang District, Beijing. Results. 900 residents were enrolled. 80.9% of them wanted to hear the truth regarding their own condition from the physician; 52.4% preferred to make their own healthcare decisions. Only 8.9% of them preferred to endure life-prolonging interventions when faced with irreversible conditions. 78.3% of the respondents had not heard of an ACP; only 39.4% preferred to document in an ACP. Respondents with higher education had significantly higher proportion of having heard of an ACP, as well as preferring to document in an ACP, compared to those with lower education. Those aged <70 years had higher proportion of having heard of an ACP, as well as refusing life-prolonging interventions when faced with irreversible conditions, compared to those aged ≥70 years. Conclusions. Although the majority of community-dwelling older Chinese adults appeared to have healthcare autonomy and refuse life-prolonging interventions in terms of end-of-life care, a low level of “Planning ahead” awareness and preference was apparent. Age and education level may be the influential factors.

1. Introduction

The provision of optimum care for the aging population is dependent on the understanding of their views and values on healthcare issues, especially end-of-life issues. Advance care planning (ACP) is a process of reflection, discussion, and communication that enables a person to plan for their future medical treatment and other care, for a time when they are not competent to make or communicate decisions for themselves [1]. ACP generally takes one of two forms: (1) the advance directive or “living will,” a mechanism that allows individuals to catalog their preferences for future healthcare; (2) the durable power of attorney for healthcare or “healthcare proxy,” a document that assigns a surrogate to make medical decisions on behalf of a patient in the event of decisional incapacitation [2]. It has gained prominence internationally for perceived benefits in enhancing patient autonomy and ensuring that patients receive appropriate, high-quality end-of-life care, as well as reducing stress, anxiety, and depression in surviving family members [3]. In the United States, the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1991 aims to encourage patients to take the initiative to ensure that their values are respected at the end of their life [4]. This legislation is letting US society think over urgency of the way to deal with end-of-life care and decision-making [5]. Nowadays, up to 70% of community-dwelling older adults in the United States have completed an advance directive [6], and data from the Health and Retirement Study showed that the elderly Americans who had prepared advance directives received care that was strongly associated with their preferences [7].

China is a country with the largest population in the world and is facing a growing aging population, increased incidences of cancer, and a huge number of terminally ill patients [8]. Therefore, it is imperative to develop palliative care and implement ACP in the country. In recent years, there has been growing evidence from Hong Kong suggesting that Chinese older people residing in residential care homes are well aware of the anticipated death and welcome the opportunity to discuss issues related to end-of-life care and death preparation [9]. However, despite substantial international literature on ACP [10], there is a paucity of information on the attitudes of the elderly citizens towards ACP in mainland China. It is with this view that we conducted this study with the following objectives: (1) to identify knowledge and preferences of ACP, as well as preferences towards truth telling, healthcare autonomy, and end-of-life care of older adults living in the city of Beijing; (2) to explore the factors associated with those preferences.

2. Material and Methods

It was a cross-sectional survey conducted from August 6 to September 3, 2014. The study was performed at two communities in Chaoyang District, Beijing. The interviewers had training and practice sessions prior to the interviews. The face-to-face, semistructured interviews were conducted in the existing seniors clubs in the two communities. The seniors clubs were chosen because they provided the researchers with access to a large number of older persons in a short time frame. A total of 1098 people were in attendance in the seniors clubs during the period in which we visited; however, some people did not take the survey. A total of 921 participants completed the survey with a response rate of 83.9%. Of them, 21 participants were excluded from the analysis due to incompletion of the survey. A total of 900 surveys were included in the final analysis. Participants enrolled in the study were aged above 65 years, were able to understand the content of the questionnaire, and could communicate well with the interviewers. They were also willing to participate in the study. Older adults documented to have delirium, dementia, aphasia, and drowsiness were excluded from the study.

The questionnaire used in the study was reviewed and approved by the hospital directors and the hospital’s ethical review board. It is composed of collection of participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and five questions designed to delineate participants’ awareness, preferences, and attitudes towards advance care planning, truth telling, healthcare autonomy, and end-of-life care. Sociodemographic characteristics including age, gender, religion, education level, marital status, living situation, monthly income, and social support conditions were collected. Social support conditions were reflected by whether older adults can get life support from their children and the number of close friends older adults have, from whom they can get support when they have difficulties.

Before asking the questions, participants were informed about the concept of ACP: “Advance care planning is defined as a communication and decision-making process that allows individuals to clarify their values and preferences for future care, and enables them to communicate their wishes to loved ones, surrogate decision makers and healthcare providers” [11]. After this introduction, they were asked the following questions: “Do you want to hear the real news regarding your own condition from the physician (Q1)?”; “Would you prefer to make your own healthcare decisions (Q2)?”; “Have you ever heard of an advanced care planning before (Q3)?”; “Do you want to document in an ACP so that your own values and preferences will be respected in case you become seriously ill (Q4)?”; “Are you willing to endure specific life-prolonging interventions (such as chronic ventilator and feeding tube) to avoid death in terms of irreversible conditions (Q5)?” Questions and 2 were designed to reflect participants’ attitudes towards healthcare autonomy, while questions and 4 were designed to reflect participants’ awareness and preferences towards ACP. Question was designed to reflect participants’ attitudes towards end-of-life care. These questions required a response of yes/no. If a participant did not want to answer certain questions, he/she could choose the option of “refuse to answer,” which was also recorded.

3. Statistical Analysis

Results were presented as means ± standard deviations for continuous variables. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages. Participants were classified into two groups: one group was those answering “yes” for each of the above-mentioned 5 questions, while the other group was those answering “no” for the questions. A Chi-square test was used to measure differences between the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics in the two groups. Groups were tested for comparability on age, gender, religion, education level, marital status, living situation, income, and social support conditions. Values of were considered statistically significant. All the analysis was performed using SPSS software version 16.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

4. Results

Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants. The mean age of participants was 74.99 ± 6.53 years; 53% () of them were female. 79.8% () of them were married, while 20.2% were single/divorced/widowed. 11.2% () of the respondents lived alone. 70.4% () of them listed being high school graduate or less for their education levels. Most of them had children (97.3%) and could get life support from their children (71.3%). The vast majority of them did not have a religion (97.6%).

Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants ().

Variables

Percent (%)

Gender

    Male
423
47

    Female
477
53

Age
74.99 ± 6.53

    <70 years
267
29.7

    ≥70 years
633
70.3

Education

    High school graduate or less
634
70.4

    Some college or more
266
29.6

Living situation

    Lives alone
104
11.5

    Lives with someone
796
88.5

Marital status

    Married
718
79.8

    Single/widowed/divorced
182
20.2

Religiosity

    No
878
97.6

    Yes
22
2.4

Monthly income (RMB)

    <1300
36
4.0

    1300–5000
766
85.1

    >5000
78
8.6

    Unknown
20
2.2

Have children

    No
24
2.7

    Yes
876
97.3

Support from children

    Yes
642
71.3

    No
208
23.1

    Refuse to answer
50
5.6

Number of close friends to provide life support and help

    0
235
26.1

    1–5
444
49.3

    ≥6
174
19.3

    Unknown
47
5.3

The respondents’ options for the five questions mentioned above were as follows—Table 2. Of the respondents, 80.9% wanted to hear the real news regarding their own condition from the physician, while 52.4% preferred to make their own healthcare decisions. Only a very small number of them (8.9%) preferred to endure life-prolonging interventions when faced with irreversible conditions. When introduced to the concept of ACP, the majority (78.3%) of them had not heard of it, and only 39.4% wanted to document in an ACP, whereas 41.9% did not. 18.7% of the respondents refused to answer this question.

Table 2: Participants’ answers to the five questions regarding truth telling, ACP, healthcare autonomy, and end-of-life care.

Number
Sample questions
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Refuse to answer
(%)
Total
(%)

1
“Do you want to hear the real news regarding your own condition from the physician?”
728 (80.9)
92 (10.2)
80 (8.9)
900 (100)

2
“Would you prefer to make your own healthcare decisions?”
472 (52.4)
312 (34.7)
116 (12.9)
900 (100)

3
“Have you ever heard of an ACP?”
138 (15.3)
705 (78.3)
57 (6.4)
900 (100)

4
“Do you want to document in an ACP so that your own values and preferences will be respected in case you become seriously ill?”
355 (39.4)
377 (41.9)
168 (18.7)
900 (100)

5
“Are you willing to endure specific life-prolonging interventions (such as chronic ventilator and feeding tube) to avoid death when faced with irreversible conditions?”
79 (8.9)
503 (55.8)
318 (35.3)
900 (100)

According to results of the Chi-square test, Tables 3–7, survey respondents with higher education level (some college or more) had significantly higher proportion of having ever heard of an ACP, as well as preferring to document in an ACP, compared to those with education level of being high school graduate or less (23.6% versus 13.3%, ; 60.3% versus 43.5%, , resp.). Those aged <70 years had higher proportion of having ever heard of an ACP, as well as refusing life-prolonging interventions to avoid death when faced with irreversible conditions, compared to those aged ≥70 years (21.9% versus 14.0%, ; 91.0% versus 84.2%, ). There was no difference in preferences for the questions between men and women. No statistical differences were found for gender, marital status, religion, income, having children, and support from children between those who answered “yes” and “no” for the above-mentioned questions.

Table 3: Comparison of sociodemographic characteristics of respondents answering “yes” and “no” to question 1 ().

Variables
All ()
Yes ()
No ()
( value)

Gender

    Male
386
347
39
0.912 (0.34)

    Female
434
381
53

Age

    <70 years
245
215
30
0.369 (0.544)

    ≥70 years
575
513
62

Education

    High school graduate or less
581
507
74
4.606 (0.032)

    Some college or more
239
221
18

Living condition

    Lives alone
92
84
8
0.288 (0.591)

    Lives with someone
728
644
84

Marital status

    Married
655
585
70
1.308 (0.253)

    Unmarried/widowed/divorced
165
143
22

Religiosity

    No
797
706
91
1.094 (0.499)

    Yes
23
22
1

Monthly income (RMB)

    <1300
29
23
6
4.031 (0.231)

    1300–5000
703
630
73

    >5000
70
60
10

    Unknown
18
15
3

Have children

    No
23
23
0
(2.990) 0.097

    Yes
797
705
92

Support from children

    Yes
578
516
62

    No
198
185
13

    Refuse to answer
44
27
17

Number of close friends to provide life support and help

    0
208
179
29
3.045 (0.385)

    1–5
413
371
42

    ≥6
160
141
19

    Unknown
39
37
2

Table 4: Comparison of sociodemographic characteristics of respondents answering “yes” and “no” to question 2 ().

Variables
Total sample ()
Yes ()
No ()
( value)

Gender

    Male
371
225
146
0.058 (0.81)

    Female
413
247
166

Age

    <70 years
241
153
88
1.564 (0.211)

    ≥70 years
543
319
224

Education

    High school graduate or less
554
326
228
1.347 (0.262)

    Some college or more
230
146
84

Living condition

    Lives alone
85
54
31
0.229 (0.632)

    Lives with someone
699
418
281

Marriage

    Married
628
381
247
0.247 (0.619)

    Unmarried/widowed/divorced
156
91
65

Religiosity

    No
764
456
308
3.317 (0.103)

    Yes
20
16
4

Monthly income (RMB)

    <1300
28
15
13
3.325 (0.358)

    1300–5000
673
409
264

    >5000
66
41
25

    Unknown
17
7
10

Have children

    No
22
11
11
0.984 (0.321)

    Yes
762
461
301

Support from children

    Yes
546
343
203
2.590 (1.108)

    No
195
109
86

    Refuse to answer
43
20
23

Number of close friends to provide life support and help

    0
199
115
84
4.899 (0.179)

    1–5
399
232
167

    ≥6
152
104
48

    Unknown
34
21
13

Table 5: Comparison of sociodemographic characteristics of respondents answering “yes” and “no” to question 3 ().

Variables
Total sample ()
Yes ()
No ()
( value)

Gender

    Male
395
67
328
0.19 (0.663)

    Female
448
71
377

Age

    <70 years
256
56
200
8.138 (0.04)

    ≥70 years
587
82
505

Education

    High school graduate or less
593
79
514
13.569 (0.000)

    Some college or more
250
59
191

Living condition

    Lives alone
94
17
77
0.261 (0.609)

    Lives with someone
749
121
628

Marriage

    Married
676
112
564
0.071 (0.789)

    Unmarried/widowed/divorced
167
26
141

Religiosity

    No
821
136
685
0.466 (0.495)

    Yes
22
2
20

Monthly income (RMB)

    <1300
30
1
29
6.236 (0.101)

    1300–5000
721
117
604

    >5000
73
17
56

    Unknown
19
3
16

Have children

    No
23
6
17
1.631 (0.202)

    Yes
820
132
688

Support from children

    Yes
592
94
498
1.792 (0.408)

    No
201
32
169

    Refuse to answer
50
12
38

Number of close friends to provide life support and help

    0
212
28
184
4.102 (0.251)

    1–5
425
71
354

    ≥6
165
34
131

    Unknown
41
5
36

Table 6: Comparison of sociodemographic characteristics of respondents answering “yes” and “no” to question 4 ().

Variables
Total sample ()
Yes ()
No ()
( value)

Gender

    Male
350
177
173
0.155 (0.282)

    Female
382
178
204

Age

    <70 years
226
124
102
5.311 (0.021)

    ≥70 years
506
231
275

Education

    High school graduate or less
513
223
290
17.352 (0.000)

    Some college or more
219
132
87

Living condition

    Lives alone
81
45
36
1.356 (0.244)

    Lives with someone
651
310
341

Marriage

    Married
583
289
294
1.322 (0.250)

    Unmarried/widowed/divorced
149
66
83

Religiosity

    No
710
344
366
0.303 (0.582)

    Yes
22
11
11

Monthly income (RMB)

    <1300
25
9
16
3.486 (0.323)

    1300–5000
627
302
325

    >5000
65
37
28

    Unknown
15
7
8

Have children

    No
19
11
8
0.671 (0.413)

    Yes
713
344
369

Support from children

    Yes
514
257
257
2.296 (0.317)

    No
175
79
96

    Refuse to answer
43
19
24

Number of close friends to provide life support and help

    0
184
88
96
9.847 (0.020)

    1–5
367
164
203

    ≥6
149
81
68

    Unknown
32
22
10

Table 7: Comparison of sociodemographic characteristics of respondents answering “yes” and “no” to question 5 ().

Variables
Total sample ()
Yes ()
No ()
( value)

Gender

    Male
276
37
239
0.013 (0.91)

    Female
306
42
264

Age

    <70 years
189
17
172
5.503 (0.025)

    ≥70 years
393
62
331

Education

    High school graduate or less
397
58
339
1.142 (0.285)

    Some college or more
185
21
164

Living condition

    Lives alone
62
6
56
0.855 (0.355)

    Lives with someone
520
73
447

Marriage

    Married
468
68
400
1.861 (0.172)

    Unmarried/widowed/divorced
114
11
103

Religiosity

    No
562
76
486
0 (1.000)

    Yes
20
3
17

Monthly income (RMB)

    <1300
16
2
14
1.704 (0.636)

    1300–5000
508
71
437

    >5000
48
6
42

    Unknown
10
0
10

Have children

    No
17
3
14
0.026 (0.873)

    Yes
565
76
489

Support from children

    Yes
406
61
345
0.210 (0.350)

    No
150
16
134

    Refuse to answer
26
2
24

Number of close friends to provide life support and help

    0
137
22
115
17.117 (0.001)

    1–5
293
43
250

    ≥6
127
12
115

    Unknown
25
2
23

5. Discussion

According to our knowledge, this study was the first attempt to investigate community-dwelling older persons’ preferences and attitudes towards ACP, truth telling, healthcare autonomy, and end-of-life care, as well as explore the factors associated with those attitudes in mainland China. Consequently, such data will provide insight into our understanding of advance care planning and healthcare preferences of elderly community-dwellers in mainland China and serve as a foundation for later investigations on suitable ways of implementing ACP.

A low level of ACP awareness and preferences was apparent; very few participants had ever heard of an ACP, which can help to achieve their autonomy. However, the favoring of truth telling and self-determination by our participants was relatively high. Most of the participants preferred to hear the real news regarding their own condition from physician, and more than half of them wanted to make their own healthcare decisions. Only a very small portion of the participants expressed that they would endure life-prolonging interventions in terms of irreversible conditions. Previous literature showed that traditional Chinese societies were strongly family centered [12, 13]; healthcare decisions were often made by the family as a group, rather than by the individual, and the principle of autonomy played a lesser role in Chinese societies. In our study, encouragingly there was a significant proportion of elderly participants who favored healthcare autonomy and had negative attitudes towards life-prolonging interventions in terms of end-of-life care. When introduced to the concept of ACP, less than forty percent of respondents expressed that they would prefer to document in it. One possible explanation is that the concept is very new to them or unfamiliar. In mainland China, end-of-life care and the concept of ACP are not widely known or taught in the medical profession, and there are even fewer public promotion activities on these topics. Over one-third of participants refused to answer the question of “Are you willing to endure specific life-prolonging interventions to avoid death in terms of irreversible conditions (Q5)?” A possible explanation may be that these participants were hesitant to talk about death and end-of-life related decisions or they considered the topic taboo or were uncomfortable discussing it.

Factors influencing older people’s attitudes towards ACP had been studied. We found that age and education level may be the influential factors. Survey respondents with higher education had significantly higher proportion of having heard of an ACP, as well as preferring to document in an ACP. Some previous studies also showed that higher education was associated with a greater awareness and preference for ACP [14, 15]. Chinese, Filipino, and Japanese studies have shown that a higher education level and degree of acculturation are associated with more positive views towards planning and communication regarding the end of life [16, 17]. From our perspective, participants with education level of being high school graduate or less may have reduced comprehension of ACP definitions and goals. Those aged <70 years had higher proportion of having heard of an ACP, as well as refusing life-prolonging interventions when faced with irreversible conditions in our study. A possible explanation is that these younger respondents may be less influenced by traditional Chinese culture compared to those much older respondents; therefore they were more likely to accept the views of ACP.

There have been very few studies regarding Chinese older adults’ attitudes towards ACP, advance directives (AD), and palliative care. A cross-sectional study published in 2014 investigated advance directive and end-of-life care preferences among nursing home residents, which showed that most (95.3%) had never heard of AD, and only 31.5% preferred to make an AD. More than half (52.5%) would receive life-sustaining treatment if they sustained a life-threatening condition [18]. In a transnational survey, 62 patients from five hospitals of mainland China who are seriously ill were visited to study their attitudes towards end-of-life decisions. It showed that most respondents (80.3%) wanted to hear the truth directly if they were diagnosed with a terminal condition, but more than half of the respondents (55.7%) wanted continued treatment in irreversible conditions [19]. There have been even fewer studies focused on the attitudes of older Chinese people towards end-of-life decisions who migrated to and settled in Western countries. A Canadian study concluded that older Chinese people did not favor advance directives because they create negative thoughts by requiring people to contemplate their own demise [20]. Another study performed in the United States, however, showed that it is feasible to conduct a nurse-led educational seminar on ACP in a community-dwelling population of Chinese Americans; Chinese in this study were open to the topic and showed a willingness to learn about ACP [21].

A variety of factors that prevent elderly people from making advance care planning were identified in the literature, including irrelevance, reluctance to think about dying, lack of knowledge, feeling that planning is unnecessary because family knows what to do, and feeling that loved ones are unable or unwilling to discuss ACP [22, 23]. In particular, there are some obstacles towards implementing ACP in mainland China for the following reasons. The first reason is associated with culture, which shapes the way people deal with illness, suffering, and death, as well as the communications and decisions related to ACP [24]. In traditional Chinese culture, Confucianism and the relative importance placed on an individual’s relationship with their family and society have a deep influence on decision-making, especially at the end of life [25, 26]. Family cohesion is highly valued and overrides the preferences and autonomy of an individual [27]. Moreover, the traditional Chinese superstition believed that death was a very sensitive issue, and mentioning it was sacrilegious and to be avoided [28]. Secondly, medical decision-making has been seen primarily as a duty of the family in order to protect the patient from the burden of making difficult choices about medical care [24]. It turned out to be that older adults are often excluded from decision-making.

Despite the obstacles mentioned above, the endeavor to promote ACP and palliative care has been made in mainland China in recent years. The foundation of Beijing Living Will Promotion Association, which was approved by the Beijing Civil Affairs Bureau in June 2013, was a landmark event in this regard [29]. Since its foundation, the organization had launched a website, called “Choice and Dignity,” to provide online advice on making living wills [30]. However, we should be aware that although there is a lot of evidence regarding ACP and end-of-life care discussions in Western countries, cultural attitudes towards such issues are different in Chinese societies [31]. Currently, there has been insufficient research to demonstrate the benefits of ACP to eastern Asian patients. For many Chinese older adults with the preference for making decisions as families and a relative unfamiliarity with ACP, the use of ACP may be discouraged. Moreover, patients’ treatment preferences and values may change when their health changes, at the end of life and even during periods of stable health [32]. Therefore, it may be difficult and impractical to import ACP system and apply it directly in China. To implement ACP in mainland China, health professionals should conduct culturally specific advance care planning that is tailored to Chinese people’s specific cultural attitudes and ethnic beliefs. Encouragingly, elderly people’s favoring for self-determination as well as their negative attitudes towards life-sustaining treatment in terms of irreversible conditions in our study suggests that it is possible to initiate the topic concerning end-of-life care and ACP related issues to Chinese elderly citizens. Providing culture-sensitive knowledge, education, and communication regarding ACP is a feasible first step to promoting this health behavior in mainland China.

It is important to point out the limitations of this study. First, the participants in this study were small convenience samples. Thus, the generalization of the findings requires caution. Second, associated conditions of the older adults such as multimorbidity, functional status, and prior exposure to illness were not incorporated into the study, which may also be important determinants in ACP and its perceived relevance to individuals. Finally, the questionnaire, especially the five questions in the questionnaire to delineate participants’ awareness, preferences, and attitudes towards advance care planning, truth telling, healthcare autonomy, and end-of-life care in this study, was designed by us and there is no previous literature to demonstrate its validity. Moreover, we used some hypothetical clinical scenarios in our questionnaire, for which reason responses to the survey might not accurately reflect what individuals would choose in reality and validity of the questionnaire needs to be further assessed.

6. Conclusion

This study identified the preferences and attitudes towards ACP and healthcare autonomy of community-dwelling older adults living in Beijing. Although the majority of elderly community-dwellers in this survey appeared to have medical autonomy and preferred comfort measures in terms of irreversible conditions, a low level of “Planning ahead” awareness and preferences was apparent. Given that the concept of advance care planning and knowledge of palliative care are not well understood in China, more effort is needed to step up public education in this regard. Moreover, to implement advance care planning in mainland China, it should be tailored to individuals’ needs and feasible in the Chinese healthcare system and culture.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the project of Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission (D121100004912002).

References

F. Cheang, T. Finnegan, C. Stewart, A. Hession, and J. M. Clayton, “Single-centre cross-sectional analysis of advance care planning among elderly inpatients,” Internal Medicine Journal, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 967–974, 2014.

L. L. Emanuel, C. F. von Gunten, and F. D. Ferris, “Advance care planning,” Archives of Family Medicine, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 1181–1187, 2000.

C. C. Bennett, “A healthier future for all Australians,” Final Report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, Department of Health and Ageing, National Hospitals and Health Reform Commission, Canberra, Australia, 2009.

B. B. Ott, “Advance directives: the emerging body of research,” American Journal of Critical Care, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 514–519, 1999.

M. Ersek, M. Kagawa-Singer, D. Barnes, L. Blackhall, and B. A. Koenig, “Multicultural considerations in the use of advance directives,” Oncology Nursing Forum, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1683–1690, 1998.

J. M. Teno, A. Gruneir, Z. Schwartz, A. Nanda, and T. Wetle, “Association between advance directives and quality of end-of-life care: a national study,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 189–194, 2007.

M. J. Silveira, S. Y. H. Kim, and K. M. Langa, “Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 362, no. 13, pp. 1211–1218, 2010.

L. Liu and C. Yuan, “Construction of palliative care training contents in China: a delphi study,” Cancer Nursing, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 446–455, 2009.

H. Y. L. Chan and S. M. C. Pang, “Readiness of Chinese frail old age home residents towards end-of-life care decision making,” Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 20, no. 9-10, pp. 1454–1461, 2011.

J. Kwak and W. E. Haley, “Current research findings on end-of-life decision making among racially or ethnically diverse groups,” Gerontologist, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 634–641, 2005.

P. A. Singer, G. Robertson, and D. J. Roy, “Bioethics for clinicians: 6. Advance care planning,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 155, no. 12, pp. 1689–1692, 1996.

M. Ip, T. Gilligan, B. Koenig, and T. A. Raffin, “Ethical decision-making in critical care in Hong Kong,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 447–451, 1998.

L. Koo, “Health and the Chinese family,” in Nourishment of Life-Health in Chinese Society, pp. 18–22, The Commercial Press, Hong Kong, China, 1987.

M. L. Rurup, B. D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, A. van der Heide, G. van der Wal, and D. J. H. Deeg, “Frequency and determinants of advance directives concerning end-of-life care in the Netherlands,” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1552–1563, 2006.

K. Black and S. L. Reynolds, “Factors associated with advance care planning among older women in Southwest Florida,” Journal of Women & Aging, vol. 20, no. 3-4, pp. 249–264, 2008.

S. Matsumura, S. Bito, H. Liu et al., “Acculturation of attitudes toward end-of-life care a cross-cultural survey of Japanese Americans and Japanese,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 531–539, 2002.

K. L. Braun and R. Nichols, “Death and dying in four Asian American cultures: a descriptive study,” Death Studies, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 327–359, 1997.

P. Ni, J. Zhou, Z. X. Wang, R. Nie, J. Phillips, and J. Mao, “Advance directive and end-of-life care preferences among nursing home residents in Wuhan, China: a cross-sectional study,” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 751–756, 2014.

K. Ivo, K. Younsuck, Y. Y. Ho et al., “A survey of the perspectives of patients who are seriously ill regarding end-of-life decisions in some medical institutions of Korea, China and Japan,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 310–316, 2012.

K. W. Bowman and P. A. Singer, “Chinese seniors' perspectives on end-of-life decisions,” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 455–464, 2001.

M. C. Lee, K. A. Hinderer, and E. Friedmann, “Engaging Chinese-American adults in advance care planning: a community-based, culturally sensitive seminar,” Journal of Gerontological Nursing, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 17–21, 2015.

T. R. Fried, K. Bullock, L. Iannone, and J. R. O'Leary, “Understanding advance care planning as a process of health behavior change,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 1547–1555, 2009.

A. D. Schickedanz, D. Schillinger, C. S. Landefeld, S. J. Knight, B. A. Williams, and R. L. Sudore, “A clinical framework for improving the advance care planning process: start with patients' self-identified barriers,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 31–39, 2009.

M. Kagawa-Singer and L. J. Blackhall, “Negotiating cross-cultural issues at the end of life: ‘you got to go where he lives’,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 286, no. 23, pp. 2993–3001, 2001.

T. Chun-Yan and J. Tao, “Strategic ambiguities in the process of consent: role of the family in decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment for incompetent elderly patients,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 207–223, 2004.

H. M. Chan, “Sharing death and dying: advance directives, autonomy and the family,” Bioethics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 87–103, 2004.

S. Jeong, S. Ohr, J. Pich, P. Saul, and A. Ho, “‘Planning ahead’ among community-dwelling older people from culturally and linguistically diverse background: a cross-sectional survey,” Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 24, no. 1-2, pp. 244–255, 2014.

S. Y. Wong, S. H. Lo, C. H. Chan, H. S. Chui, W. K. Sze, and Y. Tung, “Is it feasible to discuss an advance directive with a Chinese patient with advanced malignancy?” Hong Kong Medical Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 178–185, 2012.

2015, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-08/01/c_132594452.htm

2015, http://www.xzyzy.com/

K.-Y. Wen, Y.-C. Lin, J.-F. Cheng et al., “Insights into Chinese perspectives on do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders from an examination of DNR order form completeness for cancer patients,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 2593–2598, 2013.

R. L. Sudore and T. R. Fried, “Redefining the ‘planning’ in advance care planning: preparing for end-of-life decision making,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 153, no. 4, pp. 256–261, 2010.