Erica C Kaye, Harmony Farner, Shoshana Mehler, Kelly Bien, Nidhi Mali, Tara M Brinkman, Justin N Baker, Pamela Hinds, Jennifer W Mack
{"title":"Patient, Parent, and Oncologist Perspectives and Recommendations on the Right Way to Talk About Prognosis in Advanced Childhood Cancer.","authors":"Erica C Kaye, Harmony Farner, Shoshana Mehler, Kelly Bien, Nidhi Mali, Tara M Brinkman, Justin N Baker, Pamela Hinds, Jennifer W Mack","doi":"10.1200/OP.24.00249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clear prognostic communication is associated with improvements in quality of life and suffering for children with advanced illness. Yet recent evidence demonstrates that pediatric oncologists often avoid, defer, or soften prognostic disclosure. We aimed to describe pediatric cancer shareholder perspectives on quality prognostic communication to inform design of an intervention to improve prognostic disclosure in advanced childhood cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of pediatric patients with cancer (n = 20), parents (n = 20), and oncologists (n = 20) representing six institutions across five states. Rapid analysis was performed using the National Cancer Institute core communication functions to organize domains of inquiry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three main themes were endorsed by participants regarding the ideal timing of prognostic disclosure: early, ongoing, individualized. Although each group emphasized the need for an individualized approach, oncologists rarely elicited patient/parent preferences for prognostic communication and more commonly inferred what a patient/family wanted to hear. Participants described five key pillars for how to facilitate quality prognostic disclosure: conversation leadership, overall attendance, patient inclusion, location, and atmosphere. They also identified four themes around ideal prognostic content: range of information, use of numbers, population-level versus patient-specific information, and tone/delivery. Discordant recommendations between patients/parents and oncologists emerged for how much and what information to share.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pediatric cancer shareholders advocated for diverse, and sometimes conflicting, approaches for prognostic disclosure. Although nearly all participants endorsed the importance of individualized prognostic disclosure, specific strategies to encourage or facilitate person-centered prognostic conversation are lacking. Future research will focus on collaboration with pediatric patients, parents, and oncologists to codesign a clinical intervention to improve prognostic communication for children with advanced cancer and their families.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.24.00249","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Clear prognostic communication is associated with improvements in quality of life and suffering for children with advanced illness. Yet recent evidence demonstrates that pediatric oncologists often avoid, defer, or soften prognostic disclosure. We aimed to describe pediatric cancer shareholder perspectives on quality prognostic communication to inform design of an intervention to improve prognostic disclosure in advanced childhood cancer.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of pediatric patients with cancer (n = 20), parents (n = 20), and oncologists (n = 20) representing six institutions across five states. Rapid analysis was performed using the National Cancer Institute core communication functions to organize domains of inquiry.
Results: Three main themes were endorsed by participants regarding the ideal timing of prognostic disclosure: early, ongoing, individualized. Although each group emphasized the need for an individualized approach, oncologists rarely elicited patient/parent preferences for prognostic communication and more commonly inferred what a patient/family wanted to hear. Participants described five key pillars for how to facilitate quality prognostic disclosure: conversation leadership, overall attendance, patient inclusion, location, and atmosphere. They also identified four themes around ideal prognostic content: range of information, use of numbers, population-level versus patient-specific information, and tone/delivery. Discordant recommendations between patients/parents and oncologists emerged for how much and what information to share.
Conclusion: Pediatric cancer shareholders advocated for diverse, and sometimes conflicting, approaches for prognostic disclosure. Although nearly all participants endorsed the importance of individualized prognostic disclosure, specific strategies to encourage or facilitate person-centered prognostic conversation are lacking. Future research will focus on collaboration with pediatric patients, parents, and oncologists to codesign a clinical intervention to improve prognostic communication for children with advanced cancer and their families.