4.6 Article

The attitudes of Korean cancer patients, family caregivers, oncologists, and members of the general public toward advance directives

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 1437-1444

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-012-1689-z

关键词

Advance directives; Attitude; Hospice-palliative care

资金

  1. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Korea
  2. National Cancer Center, Korea [0710730-3]
  3. Korea Health Promotion Institute [0710730-3] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate Korean attitudes toward advance directives (ADs) among cancer patients, family caregivers, oncologists, and the general public. A multicenter survey study explored the attitudes of participants to ADs, and hospice-palliative care (HPC) was conducted. A total of 1,242 cancer patients, 1,289 family caregivers, 303 oncologists, and 1,006 members of the general public participated in the survey. The majority of patients, family caregivers, oncologists, and general public agreed with the necessity of ADs. However, oncologists regard when became terminal status as an optimal timing for completion of ADs (52.2 %), while other groups regard earlier periods as it. More than 95 % oncologist answered that cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilator are necessity items for ADs form, while around 70 % of other groups answered so. Multivariate analysis revealed that several factors including agreement with terminal disclosures and a positive attitude toward HPC were independently associated with necessity of ADs. We found that attitudes toward ADs among cancer patients, family caregivers, oncologists, and the general public were significantly different. Our study also suggests that favorable attitudes toward comfort end-of-life care and HPC are keys that influence the perceived need for ADs.

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