The Korean advance directive (K–AD) comprises a value statement, treatment directives, preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), artificial ventilation, tube feeding, and hospice care, as well as a proxy appointment. The K–AD can facilitate a patient's decision making with respect to end-of-life (EoL) care. The present study aimed to examine the extent to which patient–caregiver dyads would use the K–AD and agree on EoL care decisions.

Using a descriptive study design, 81 cancer patients were invited to participate. The final sample consisted of 44 patient–caregiver dyads who completed survey questionnaires, including the K–AD. One patient did not complete all parts of the questionnaire, and 36 (44.4%) declined to participate. Content analysis was conducted to examine the K–AD value statements. Cohen's kappa coefficient was calculated to determine the degree of patient–caregiver dyadic agreement on K–AD treatment directives (Sudore & Fried, 2010).

Our patient participants had the following cancer diagnoses: colorectal 29.5%, breast 29.5%, and liver/biliary tract cancers, 15.9%. Half of the sample had advanced-stage disease. Spouses (70.5%) or adult children (20.4%) were the primary caregivers, with perceived bonding rated as fair (31.8%) or good (65.9%). Rejection of the K–AD was mainly due to the difficulty involved in deciding on EoL care (50%). Comfort while dying was the most common theme expressed by patients (73.8%) and caregivers (66.7%). In terms of treatment directives, dyads advocated for hospice care (66.7%) and reduced support for aggressive treatments of CPR or artificial ventilation. The use of CPR (κ = 0.43, p = 0.004) and artificial ventilation (κ = 0.28, p = 0.046) showed significantly mild to moderate concordance among the dyads. Some 16 of the 21 dyads identified their spouses as a proxy, with others designating their adult children.

The degree of patient–caregiver concordance on the K–AD seemed applicable, and achieved mild to moderate concordance. Our findings are exploratory but suggest the need for EoL discussions where patient–caregiver dyads are encouraged to participate in EoL care decision making.