4.6 Review

Advance care planning for cancer patients: a systematic review of perceptions and experiences of patients, families, and healthcare providers

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 362-386

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.3926

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundPatients with advanced cancer may benefit from end of life (EOL) planning, but there is evidence that their willingness and desire to engage in advance care planning (ACP) varies. The reasons for this remain poorly understood. Previous reviews on ACP most commonly report outcome measures related to medical interventions and type of care. Synthesis of the literature, which aims to illuminate the salient characteristics of ACP and investigates the psychological and social features of preparation for the EOL, is required. MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies on perceptions or experiences regarding ACP of adults with cancer, family, friends, or professionals caring for this group. Databases were searched from earliest records to 19 November 2014. A thematic analysis of the literature generated conceptual themes. ResultsOf the 2483 studies identified, 40 were eligible for inclusion. Studies addressed the relational nature of ACP, fear surrounding ACP, the conceptual complexity of autonomy, and the influence of institutional culture and previous healthcare experiences on ACP. ConclusionsThe complex social and emotional environments within which EOL planning is initiated and actioned are not sufficiently embedded within standardized ACP. The notion that ACP is concerned principally with the right' to self-determination through control over treatment choices at the EOL may misrepresent the way that ACP actually occurs in cancer care and ultimately conflict with the deeper concerns and needs of patients, who experience ACP as relational, emotional, and social. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据