4.1 Article

Peaceful awareness in patients with advanced cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 1359-1368

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2006.9.1359

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA106370, CA106370] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH63892] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previous studies have shown that prognostic awareness may be harmful to mental health yet beneficial for end of life care planning. The effects of prognostic awareness coupled with a sense of inner peace are unknown. Methods: In the multisite, longitudinal Coping with Cancer Study, 280 patients with advanced cancer were interviewed at baseline. Patients defining themselves as terminally ill and/or at peace most days were paired with others on sociodemographic, mental health and advance care planning. Primary caregivers of deceased patients were interviewed 6 months postloss and compared on their physical and mental health and their perceptions of patients' end-of-life care and death. Results: Overall, 17.5% of patients reported being both peaceful and aware. Peacefully aware patients had lower rates of psychological distress and higher rates of advance care planning (e.g., completing do-not-resuscitate [DNR] orders, advance care planning discussions with physicians) than those who were not peacefully aware. Additionally, peacefully aware patients had the highest overall quality of death as reported by their caretakers in a postmortem evaluation. Surviving caregivers of peacefully aware patients were more physically and mentally healthy 6 months postloss than caregivers of patients who were aware but not peaceful. Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer who are peacefully aware have better mental health and quality of death outcomes, and their surviving caregivers have better bereavement outcomes. Peaceful awareness is associated with modifiable aspects of medical care (e.g., discussions about terminal treatment preferences).

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