4.5 Article

Breaking bad news about cancer in China: Concerns and conflicts faced by doctors deciding whether to inform patients

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 103, Issue 2, Pages 286-291

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.022

Keywords

Breaking bad news; Cancer patient; Treatment decision-making

Funding

  1. NIH Fogarty International Center Masters Level Bioethics Program at Central South University in Changsha, China [R25 TW00700]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: We aimed to explore how doctors in China decide whether to inform cancer patients about diagnosis and prognosis. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 24 doctors and residents from a leading hospital in Hunan, China. Data were analyzed by content analysis. Results: Doctors routinely told the family about cancer first, then withheld information from patients if the family did not want to tell the patient. Three main themes emerged in relation to hiding bad news from patients: 1) fear that most patients lack resilience to cope with bad news; 2) fear of direct or legal conflict with the family, and 3) a value conflict between respecting the patient's right to know and respecting the family's interest in protecting the patient. Conclusions: Doctors consider decisions to withhold information from cancer patients to be a non-ideal but necessary compromise of the patient's right to know. Culturally adjusted training and guidelines could help with including the patient in information disclosure while still respecting China's cultural value of family decision-making. Practice Implications: Future training and guidelines should help doctors mediate between patient and family interests and understand changing laws and regulations. Other important elements include reflection, senior mentorship, self-awareness, and building trust. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available