Choosing an Effective Healthcare Spokesperson: An Interactive Intervention

Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of thinking through and articulating in advance one's preferences for future medical care. It has long been promoted as a way for people to receive medical treatment consistent with their values, goals, and preferences. While ACP typically involves decision-making about specific life-sustaining treatments, choosing who will make medical decisions when the patient cannot is considered by many to be the single most important ACP action a person can take. When patients fail to designate a healthcare spokesperson (henceforth spokesperson), it leads to uncertainty about who will make medical decisions, what treatments are to be accepted or declined, and on what basis-which can lead to familial conflict, unwanted and costly medical care, and avoidable patient suffering. So, too, when patients choose the "wrong" person to represent them, the patient's wishes are less likely to be known or respected. The investigation team's own research suggests that when patients prefer fewer aggressive medical treatments, there is significantly lower concordance between spokespersons' decisions and patients' wishes.

Patients, families, and ACP experts have identified several qualities as being especially important for spokespersons to have. Ideally, spokespersons should know the patient's values, be available when needed, be trustworthy and caring, have good judgment, and be able to stand up under pressure. That said, many individuals (and state laws) assign spokespersons on the basis of relationship (spouse, parent, etc.) rather than personal qualities. Surprisingly, no interventions (to the team's knowledge) are explicitly designed to help people consider the actual qualities of the person chosen as spokesperson, much less engage this individual to confirm that this person can fully represent the patient's wishes should the need arise.

To address these gaps, the investigative team has developed a novel intervention that includes a "serious game" to help people consider the qualities desired in a spokesperson, then engage the person they choose for this role. Combining a serious topic with an enjoyable activity ("gamification") has been effective at changing health-related behaviors in multiple settings with the target population ("sandwich generation" and older adults). The game element of the intervention, "Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun" (WWYC), prompts players (using scenarios and metaphors) to choose a spokesperson whose qualities are best suited to the role. At the end of the game, players identify a real-life spokesperson based on the qualities considered during gameplay. Then, using an online interface, WWYC will spark communication between the player and their chosen spokesperson.

The long-term goal of this project is to help people make more thoughtful and informed choices when selecting a spokesperson, and to help these spokespersons be better prepared for the role of surrogate decision-maker. The current mixed methods study proposed here is designed to learn whether and how WWYC helps individuals select an appropriate spokesperson for healthcare decisions, as assessed via three specific aims:

Aim 1. To explore how playing the novel game Who Would You Choose affects people's choice of a spokesperson. Using qualitative methods including focus groups and one-on-one interviews, the investigative team will explore how WWYC affects individual players' thought process for choosing a spokesperson, and whether the player's choice changes as a result of game-play.