4.1 Article

Advance Care Planning Communication: Oncology Patients and Providers Voice their Perspectives

期刊

JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 1140-1147

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13187-017-1225-4

关键词

Oncology; Advance care planning; End of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advance care planning helps to ensure that patients' end-of-life preferences are understood and discussed with providers. It is an important component of patient-centered care, particularly when patients are facing life-limiting illness. It also has ethical implications for providers, yet evidence suggests that these conversations are not always occurring, particularly in underserved populations. The aim of this study was to understand the challenges and personal beliefs regarding ACP through interviews with patients undergoing active cancer treatment and their oncology providers. This study took place at an urban, multispecialty cancer center in the mid-Atlantic region where approximately 1400 patients are treated each year. Findings revealed differences among both patients and providers in terms of their ACP knowledge, preferences, and practices. Overall, 70% of patients were familiar with advance directives (100% of White patients and 45.5% of Black patients), yet only 35% of them reported having completed one (55.6% of White patients and 18.2% of Black patients, although not statistically significant). Most providers (70%) held ACP conversations with patients with advanced illness only. They tended to make assumptions about the amount of information that patients desired and noted the significant challenges that were inherent with these types of conversations. Overall, ethical implications are inherent in ACP as patients are making medical decisions without always having necessary information. There are various reasons why providers may not supply information regarding potential outcomes and end-of-life planning and why patients may not request (or know to request) more medical information.

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

4.1
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