Barriers to Serious Illness Conversations Among Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Samantha Hanley, Cody E Cotner, Anny Fenton, Alexi A Wright, Christopher R Manz
{"title":"Barriers to Serious Illness Conversations Among Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Samantha Hanley, Cody E Cotner, Anny Fenton, Alexi A Wright, Christopher R Manz","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.10.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Serious illness conversations (SICs) are discussions between clinicians and cancer patients about illness understanding, information preferences, and goals of care. Interventions to prompt SICs increase SIC rates and improve care delivery near the end of life. This embedded sub-study examined SIC barriers and facilitators among \"refractory\" patients without an SIC despite enrollment in an SIC clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and population: </strong>We recruited advanced cancer patients with no documented SIC 60 days after randomization in a clinical trial of patient- and clinician-nudges to engage in SICs. We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and their caregivers if present and brief email surveys with patients' oncologists. We used qualitative content analysis to identify themes related to SIC barriers and facilitators and to identify strategies to improve SICs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 44 participants, 19 were patients, 10 were caregivers, and 15 were oncologists. Themes of SIC barriers and facilitators included (1) how patients coped with their illness, which shaped their readiness for SICs; (2) clinician communication style, which shaped ease of having an SIC; (3) prognostic uncertainty and disease stability, which could prompt or justify delaying an SIC; and (4) family members' presence, which could instigate an SIC. Regarding ways to improve SIC nudges, patients and caregivers had mixed perspectives but often highlighted a preference for interventions with personal touches.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient readiness remains an important barrier even after targeted SIC interventions. Future SIC interventions should consider approaches tailored to patient communication preferences and interventions involving personal interactions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.10.034","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Serious illness conversations (SICs) are discussions between clinicians and cancer patients about illness understanding, information preferences, and goals of care. Interventions to prompt SICs increase SIC rates and improve care delivery near the end of life. This embedded sub-study examined SIC barriers and facilitators among "refractory" patients without an SIC despite enrollment in an SIC clinical trial.

Design, setting, and population: We recruited advanced cancer patients with no documented SIC 60 days after randomization in a clinical trial of patient- and clinician-nudges to engage in SICs. We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and their caregivers if present and brief email surveys with patients' oncologists. We used qualitative content analysis to identify themes related to SIC barriers and facilitators and to identify strategies to improve SICs.

Results: Of 44 participants, 19 were patients, 10 were caregivers, and 15 were oncologists. Themes of SIC barriers and facilitators included (1) how patients coped with their illness, which shaped their readiness for SICs; (2) clinician communication style, which shaped ease of having an SIC; (3) prognostic uncertainty and disease stability, which could prompt or justify delaying an SIC; and (4) family members' presence, which could instigate an SIC. Regarding ways to improve SIC nudges, patients and caregivers had mixed perspectives but often highlighted a preference for interventions with personal touches.

Conclusions: Patient readiness remains an important barrier even after targeted SIC interventions. Future SIC interventions should consider approaches tailored to patient communication preferences and interventions involving personal interactions.

晚期癌症患者进行重病谈话的障碍:定性研究。
目的:重病对话(SIC)是临床医生与癌症患者就疾病理解、信息偏好和护理目标进行的讨论。通过干预措施促进重症对话,可提高重症对话率,改善临终关怀服务。这项嵌入式子研究考察了 "难治性 "患者在加入 SIC 临床试验后仍未进行 SIC 的障碍和促进因素:我们招募了晚期癌症患者,这些患者在随机参加一项由患者和临床医生推动参与 SIC 的临床试验 60 天后仍无 SIC 记录。我们对患者及其护理人员(如果在场)进行了半结构化访谈,并对患者的肿瘤学家进行了简短的电子邮件调查。我们采用定性内容分析法确定了与SIC障碍和促进因素相关的主题,并确定了改善SIC的策略:在 44 位参与者中,19 位是患者,10 位是护理人员,15 位是肿瘤学家。SIC障碍和促进因素的主题包括:(1)患者如何应对疾病,这决定了他们是否准备好进行SIC;(2)临床医生的沟通风格,这决定了进行SIC的难易程度;(3)预后的不确定性和疾病的稳定性,这可能促使或证明推迟进行SIC是合理的;以及(4)家庭成员的存在,这可能促使进行SIC。关于如何改进SIC诱导,患者和护理人员的观点不一,但通常都强调他们更喜欢有个人接触的干预措施:即使采取了有针对性的 SIC 干预措施,患者的准备程度仍是一个重要障碍。未来的 SIC 干预措施应考虑根据患者的沟通偏好量身定制的方法以及涉及个人互动的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.40%
发文量
821
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management is an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal and serves an interdisciplinary audience of professionals by providing a forum for the publication of the latest clinical research and best practices related to the relief of illness burden among patients afflicted with serious or life-threatening illness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信