4.6 Article

Decision-making in cancer care for people living with dementia

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1347-1354

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.5448

关键词

cognitive impairment; dementia; ethnography; older adults; treatment options

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme [PB-PG-081620015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Increasing numbers of people are expected to live with comorbid cancer and dementia. Cancer treatment decision-making for these individuals is complex, particularly for those lacking capacity, requiring support across the cancer care pathway. There is little research to inform practice in this area. This ethnographic study reports on the cancer decision-making experiences of people with cancer and dementia, their families, and healthcare staff. Methods Participant observations, informal conversations, semi-structured interviews, and medical note review, in two NHS trusts. Seventeen people with dementia and cancer, 22 relatives and 19 staff members participated. Results Decision-making raised complexethical dilemmas and challengesand raised concerns for families and staff around whether correct decisions had been made.Whose decisionit was and to what extent a person with dementia and cancer was able to make decisions was complex, requiring careful and ongoing consultation and close involvement of relatives. The potential impact dementia might have on treatment understanding and toleration required additional consideration by clinicians whenevaluating treatment options. Conclusions Cancer treatment decision-making for people with dementia is challenging, should be an ongoing process and has emotional impacts for the individual, relatives, and staff. Longer, flexible, and additional appointments may be required to support decision-making by people with cancer and dementia. Evidence-based decision-making guidance on how dementia impacts cancer prognosis, treatment adherence and efficacy is required.

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