Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 31:12:1540486.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1540486. eCollection 2025.

Identification and synthesis of end-of-life decision-making measures: a scoping review

Patricia Bucko  1 , Miriam A Novack  1 , Emily H Ho  1 , Berivan Ece  1 , Evan Burleigh  2 , Molly A Mather  3   4 , Tatiana Karpouzian-Rogers  3 , Elizabeth M Dworak  1 , Sarah Pila  1 , Zahra Hosseinian  1 , S Duke Han  5 , Peter A Lichtenberg  6 , Richard C Gershon  1 , Sandra Weintraub  3   4
Affiliations

Identification and synthesis of end-of-life decision-making measures: a scoping review

Patricia Bucko et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Background: Cognitive impairment (CI) and related conditions are known to affect decision-making (DM), particularly in older adult populations. The intersection of CI and DM ability is crucial in end-of-life (EoL) care, where there is a confluence of heterogenous preferences and values often across different constituents (e.g., healthcare providers, family members, and proxies). Standardized questionnaires are necessary to characterize patients' EoL decisions, preferences, and readiness, but the extent of available measures is widely unknown.

Objective: This scoping review aims to summarize the current state of the literature regarding EoL decision-making measures. This effort supports the development of the Advancing Reliable Measurement in Cognitive Aging and Decision-making Ability (ARMCADA) research initiative, which seeks to develop a decision-making battery for use in older adults.

Methods: Following the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a scoping review for multiple domains of DM in studies published between January 2018 and November 2023. Any paper that assessed or characterized DM in participants 45 years and older was extracted for the DM domain, population characteristics, and DM measures.

Results: An initial search identified 16,286 articles, of which 705 were classified as assessing DM. Of those, 34 articles included measures of the EoL domain, and 28 unique measures were identified. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) were the only assessments used more than once in the scoping review. Many studies assessed clinical populations, including those with CI/dementia (12%), cancer (24%), and chronic conditions (16%). Findings show that measures used at the end of life emphasize decisional preferences, efficacy, and conflict.

Conclusion: Overall, this review highlights the lack of DM ability measures that can assess older adults' capacity to make decisions regarding EoL-specific issues (e.g., life-sustaining treatment and pain management).

Keywords: advance care planning; aging; cognitive impairment; decision-making; end-of-life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart of the article selection process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Poth A, Penger S, Knebel M, Müller T, Pantel J, Oswald F, et al. Empowering patients with dementia to make legally effective decisions: a randomized controlled trial on enhancing capacity to consent to treatment. Aging Ment Health. (2023) 27:292–300. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2021.2024797, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Heyland DK, Heyland R, Dodek P, You JJ, Sinuff T, Hiebert T, et al. Discordance between patients’ stated values and treatment preferences for end-of-life care: results of a multicentre survey. BMJ Support Palliat Care. (2017) 7:292–9. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2015-001056, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goswami P. Advance care planning and end-of-life communications: practical tips for oncology advanced practitioners. JADPRO. (2021) 12:89–95. doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2021.12.1.7, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sörensen S, Chapman BP, Duberstein PR, Pinquart M, Lyness JM. Assessing future care preparation in late life: two short measures. Psychol Assess. (2017) 29:1480–95. doi: 10.1037/pas0000446, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Luce JM. End-of-life decision making in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2010) 182:6–11. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201001-0071CI, PMID: - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources