Liesbeth M van Vliet, Jonathan Koffman, Eve Namisango, Diah Martina, Daniela Gidaly, Martin Loucka, Anthony L Back, Lucy E Selman, Judith Ac Rietjens, Nicole Plum, Erica Borgstrom, Natashe Lemos Dekker, Sabrina Bajwah, Dwai Banerjee, M A de Meij, Masanori Mori, Fiona Brosig, Justin J Sanders, Annemarie Samuels
{"title":"Information provision in life-threatening illnesses: comprehensive framework.","authors":"Liesbeth M van Vliet, Jonathan Koffman, Eve Namisango, Diah Martina, Daniela Gidaly, Martin Loucka, Anthony L Back, Lucy E Selman, Judith Ac Rietjens, Nicole Plum, Erica Borgstrom, Natashe Lemos Dekker, Sabrina Bajwah, Dwai Banerjee, M A de Meij, Masanori Mori, Fiona Brosig, Justin J Sanders, Annemarie Samuels","doi":"10.1136/spcare-2024-005207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In life-threatening illnesses, open information provision can benefit patients and families. However, not all patients prefer to have all information. There is a lack of clinical guidance on how to handle patient preferences for non-disclosure.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop a conceptual framework and practical guidance for clinicians regarding the spectrum of patients' information provision preferences with a focus on when patients do not desire to have full information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multidisciplinary expert stakeholder meeting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>20 expert stakeholders from various disciplines and continents participated in the expert meeting. Based on the qualitative results, a conceptual framework was created. Our framework highlights that information is never value-free but attains value via healthcare provider and patient/family factors, including how information is interpreted by clinicians and patients/families. In this process, ethical and sociocultural tensions can arise, such as between patient and family autonomy, that can influence harmful effects of the attained value of information along several axes such as empowerment versus disempowerment. To mitigate tensions and minimise harm, our framework produces practical guidance for clinicians such as making a connection and having an open attitude.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our framework has clinical, research and policy implications and can be further refined and tested. Ultimately, it serves as a starting point to reduce social and cultural inequities in end-of-life care information in a global context.</p>","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2024-005207","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In life-threatening illnesses, open information provision can benefit patients and families. However, not all patients prefer to have all information. There is a lack of clinical guidance on how to handle patient preferences for non-disclosure.
Aim: To develop a conceptual framework and practical guidance for clinicians regarding the spectrum of patients' information provision preferences with a focus on when patients do not desire to have full information.
Results: 20 expert stakeholders from various disciplines and continents participated in the expert meeting. Based on the qualitative results, a conceptual framework was created. Our framework highlights that information is never value-free but attains value via healthcare provider and patient/family factors, including how information is interpreted by clinicians and patients/families. In this process, ethical and sociocultural tensions can arise, such as between patient and family autonomy, that can influence harmful effects of the attained value of information along several axes such as empowerment versus disempowerment. To mitigate tensions and minimise harm, our framework produces practical guidance for clinicians such as making a connection and having an open attitude.
Conclusions: Our framework has clinical, research and policy implications and can be further refined and tested. Ultimately, it serves as a starting point to reduce social and cultural inequities in end-of-life care information in a global context.
期刊介绍:
Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance.
We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication.
In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.