BACKGROUND: Accurate awareness of the prognosis is an important factor in the treatment decision of patients with advanced cancer; however, prognostic disclosure is still subject to debate because it can reduce patient's satisfaction and increase depression.
AIM: The purpose of this study is to assess whether patients' prognostic awareness is associated with decreased quality of life (QoL) or increased depressive mood in patients with advanced cancer.
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, 386 patients with advanced cancer were recruited across 3 periods from December 2016 to August 2018. The outcome of this study was a change in QoL and depression according to the patients' prognostic awareness at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
RESULTS: This study found significant differences in changes of QoL based on patients' prognostic awareness. From baseline to 3 months, emotional functioning (P = .039), pain (P = .042), existential well-being (P = .025), and social support (P = .038) subscale scores improved significantly more in those with lack of prognostic awareness. Over 6 months, the group without prognostic awareness improved significantly in terms of physical functioning (P = .037), emotional functioning (P = .002), nausea/vomiting (P = .048), and constipation (P = .039) subscale scores and existential well-being scores (P = .025). No significant difference between the groups was found in terms of depression.
CONCLUSION: Accurate prognostic awareness may pose harm and may provide no additional benefits in terms of QoL and mood among patients with advanced cancer for a short period of time.
CONTEXT: To respect a patient's wish for end-of-life care, "the Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End-of-Life" was enacted in South Korea in 2016. Current understanding of people who would be involved in advance care planning (ACP) is crucial to disseminate it systematically.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate awareness and attitudes toward ACP in South Korea.
METHODS: A multicenter, nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted a survey regarding ACP among four groups that would have different positions and experiences: 1,001 cancer patients, 1,006 family caregivers, 928 physicians, and 1,241 members of the general public.
RESULTS: A total of 15% of the general population, 33% of the patients and caregivers, and 61% of the physicians had knowledge of advance directives. More than 64% of the general population, above 72% of the patients and caregivers, and 97% of the physicians were willing to do so when the disease status was aggravated or terminal. The possibility for changing the plan, uncertainty as to whether directives would actually be followed, and psychological discomfort were common reasons for not wanting to engage in ACP. Routine recommendations for a specific medical condition, heightened accessibility, and health insurance support were common factors that could help facilitate ACP.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that strategies for promoting ACP should reflect different perspectives among the general public, patients, family caregivers, and physicians. Public advocacy, resources for approaching and integrating ACP into routine healthcare, as well as systematic support provisions, are needed.
OBJECTIVES: This study determined attitudes of four groups-Korean patients with cancer, their family caregivers, physicians and the general Korean population-towards five critical end-of-life (EOL) interventions-active pain control, withdrawal of futile life-sustaining treatment (LST), passive euthanasia, active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
DESIGN AND SETTING: We enrolled 1001 patients with cancer and 1006 caregivers from 12 large hospitals in Korea, 1241 members of the general population and 928 physicians from each of the 12 hospitals and the Korean Medical Association. We analysed the associations of demographic factors, attitudes towards death and the important components of a 'good death' with critical interventions at EoL care.
RESULTS: All participant groups strongly favoured active pain control and withdrawal of futile LST but differed in attitudes towards the other four EoL interventions. Physicians (98.9%) favoured passive euthanasia more than the other three groups. Lower proportions of the four groups favoured active euthanasia or PAS. Multiple logistic regression showed that education (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.77, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.36), caregiver role (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.08) and considering death as the ending of life (aOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61) were associated with preference for active pain control. Attitudes towards death, including belief in being remembered (aOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.79) and feeling ‘life was meaningful’ (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.15) were both strong correlates of withdrawal of LST with the level of monthly income (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.15). Believing ‘freedom from pain’ negatively predicted preference for passive euthanasia (aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.85). In addition, ‘not being a burden to the family’ was positively related to preferences for active euthanasia (aOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.90) and PAS (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.89).
CONCLUSION: Groups differed in their attitudes towards the five EoL interventions, and those attitudes were significantly associated with various attitudes towards death.
PURPOSE: Understanding the concept of a "good death" is crucial to end-of-life care, but our current understanding of what constitutes a good death is insufficient. Here, we investigated the components of a good death that are important to the general population, cancer patients, their families, and physicians.
METHODS: We conducted a stratified nationwide cross-sectional survey of cancer patients and their families from 12 hospitals, physicians from 12 hospitals and the Korean Medical Association, and the general population, investigating their attitudes toward 10 good-death components.
FINDINGS: Three components-"not be a burden to the family," "presence of family," and "resolve unfinished business"-were considered the most important components by more than 2/3 of each of the three groups, and an additional three components-"freedom from pain," "feel that life was meaningful," and "at peace with God"-were considered important by all but the physicians group. Physicians considered "feel life was meaningful," "presence of family," and "not be a burden to family" as the core components of a good death, with "freedom from pain" as an additional component. "Treatment choices' followed, "finances in order," "mentally aware," and "die at home" were found to be the least important components among all four groups.
CONCLUSION: While families strongly agreed that "presence of family" and "not be a burden to family" were important to a good death, the importance of other factors differed between the groups. Health care providers should attempt to discern each patient's view of a good death.
Integrated early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life and reduces psychological distress in adult patients with cancer and caregivers, but attitudes toward EPC have been poorly studied. We aimed to investigate attitudes toward EPC in a nationwide survey of patients with cancer and caregivers. From July to October 2016, we administered nationwide questionnaires examining attitudes toward EPC in patients with cancer (n = 1001) and their families (n = 1006) from 12 Korean hospitals. When an individual considered EPC unnecessary, the reasons were collected and analyzed. Factors associated with perception of EPC were examined. A majority of patients (84.5%) and caregivers (89.5%) had positive attitudes toward EPC. The most common reasons for deeming EPC unnecessary were that EPC may be an obstacle to cancer treatment (patients: 37%; caregivers: 23%; respectively) or that they were not sure if EPC is beneficial (patients: 21%; caregivers: 24%; respectively). Financial burden as a reason was more evident in caregivers (23%) than in patients (17%). Male gender, age <50, early stage, intensive care unit admission, and not believing that dying people should prepare to practice charity were associated with patients' negative attitudes. In caregivers, opposition to EPC was associated with not thinking death should be feared, not thinking people should be remembered, and lower educational level. Our findings showed that significant numbers of patients with advanced cancer and family caregivers showed positive attitudes toward EPC. However, more than 10% of participants did not consider EPC necessary. Physicians' communication with patients and caregivers and financial support could help overcome the barriers of EPC.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of caregivers' role preference in decision making on conflicts and psychiatric distresses.
METHODS: The responses of 406 caregivers of terminal cancer patients enrolled in a trial determining the efficacy of a decision aid focused on the disclosure of terminal disease status were included in this secondary analysis. The outcomes include the change scores of the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) and depression and anxiety subscales of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at the 1 and 3 months from baseline. The linear mixed model was employed to discover the impact of caregivers' decisional role preference on the outcomes.
FINDINGS: Of the 406, 137 (33.7%) showed an active role preference and 269 (66.3%) showed a passive role preference. In the post hoc analysis of the adjusted differences of change scores between passive caregivers who received decision aid (passive-decision aid) and active caregivers with decision aid (active-decision aid), non-significant differences were observed in the DCS. However, at the 3-month, the change scores of the HADS depression subscale increased by 4.43 (effect size, 0.71) and those of the HADS anxiety subscale increased by 4.14 (effect size, 0.61) in the passive-decision aid group than in active-decision aid group, showing moderate to large difference.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that information might be ethically recommended in a format that is interactive and tailored to how much an individual wishes to be involved in the decision-making process.
PURPOSE: The authors tested whether a decision aid explaining how to discuss the approach of death with a family member with cancer would help family caregivers decide to discuss a terminal prognosis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The authors randomly assigned caregivers of terminally ill patients with cancer to a group that received a video and a companion workbook that showed either how they can discuss the prognosis with their patient (experimental arm) or how cancer pain can be controlled (control arm). At baseline and 1 month, they evaluated the decision to discuss terminal prognosis as the primary outcome. At 0, 1, 3, and 6 months, we assessed the caregivers' decisional conflict and satisfaction as secondary outcomes using a Decision Conflict Scale (DCS).
RESULTS: They found no difference in changes in the decision to discuss terminal prognosis between the two groups. Conflict (P = .003), uncertainty (P = .019), and value clarity (P = .007) subscale scores and total DCS score (P = .008) improved from baseline to 1 month significantly more in the experimental arm than in the control arm. Over 6 months, the significant between-group differences continued for the conflict (P = .031), uncertainty (P = .014), and value clarity (P = .039) subscale scores and total DCS score (P = .040).
CONCLUSION: Decision aids can help caregivers, with the aid of trained professionals, to communicate with patients about their terminal illness.