The practice of advance care planning among ambulatory cancer patients at a tertiary hospital in Kenya: descriptive cross-sectional survey.

IF 1.3 Q4 ONCOLOGY
ecancermedicalscience Pub Date : 2025-06-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2025.1926
Lavender Otom, Peter Oyiro, Elijah Ogola
{"title":"The practice of advance care planning among ambulatory cancer patients at a tertiary hospital in Kenya: descriptive cross-sectional survey.","authors":"Lavender Otom, Peter Oyiro, Elijah Ogola","doi":"10.3332/ecancer.2025.1926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advance care planning (ACP) is relevant in the care of cancer patients. Insight into the current practice of ACP can identify high-priority areas to direct interventions aimed at improving the process.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the practice of ACP among ambulatory cancer patients at a Kenyan hospital.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted at the ambulatory oncology clinic at a tertiary referral hospital. We recruited 387 study participants through consecutive sampling among heterogenous cancer patients. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect data, which was analysed by SPSS version 25 and through multivariable logistical regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 387 participants, 78.55% were females. The uptake of advance directives was low; only 27.13% of participants had appointed surrogate decision makers, while 1.5% had living wills. Few had discussed end-of-life wishes with family (28.68%) and doctors (19.63%). Only 27.39% had discussed life expectancy with a doctor. Among those who had not participated in ACP, most were willing to discuss life expectancy (71.9%); discuss end-of-life wishes with family (81.2%) and doctors (85.1%); complete advance directives (68%) and appoint surrogate decision makers (75.9%) in the next 1 month. Doctors were most preferred to initiate ACP discussions. Factors that positively correlated with uptake of advanced directives (ADs) included - ECOG status, discussion with family and with doctors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The uptake of ADs among ambulatory cancer patients was low; additionally, self-reported participation in ACP was low. Our study highlights the need for widespread education initiatives and standardisation of the ACP process.</p><p><strong>Recommendations: </strong>There is a need for further studies and strategies to improve the participation in ACP and hence the quality of life among patients with malignancies in Kenya.</p>","PeriodicalId":11460,"journal":{"name":"ecancermedicalscience","volume":"19 ","pages":"1926"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12221252/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ecancermedicalscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2025.1926","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is relevant in the care of cancer patients. Insight into the current practice of ACP can identify high-priority areas to direct interventions aimed at improving the process.

Objective: To assess the practice of ACP among ambulatory cancer patients at a Kenyan hospital.

Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted at the ambulatory oncology clinic at a tertiary referral hospital. We recruited 387 study participants through consecutive sampling among heterogenous cancer patients. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect data, which was analysed by SPSS version 25 and through multivariable logistical regression.

Results: Among 387 participants, 78.55% were females. The uptake of advance directives was low; only 27.13% of participants had appointed surrogate decision makers, while 1.5% had living wills. Few had discussed end-of-life wishes with family (28.68%) and doctors (19.63%). Only 27.39% had discussed life expectancy with a doctor. Among those who had not participated in ACP, most were willing to discuss life expectancy (71.9%); discuss end-of-life wishes with family (81.2%) and doctors (85.1%); complete advance directives (68%) and appoint surrogate decision makers (75.9%) in the next 1 month. Doctors were most preferred to initiate ACP discussions. Factors that positively correlated with uptake of advanced directives (ADs) included - ECOG status, discussion with family and with doctors.

Conclusion: The uptake of ADs among ambulatory cancer patients was low; additionally, self-reported participation in ACP was low. Our study highlights the need for widespread education initiatives and standardisation of the ACP process.

Recommendations: There is a need for further studies and strategies to improve the participation in ACP and hence the quality of life among patients with malignancies in Kenya.

在肯尼亚三级医院的门诊癌症患者的提前护理计划的做法:描述性横断面调查。
背景:提前护理计划(Advance care planning, ACP)在癌症患者的护理中具有重要意义。深入了解非加太项目目前的做法可以确定高优先领域,以指导旨在改善该进程的干预措施。目的:评价肯尼亚某医院门诊癌症患者ACP的实施情况。方法:在一家三级转诊医院的肿瘤门诊进行描述性横断面调查。我们在异质性癌症患者中通过连续抽样招募了387名研究参与者。使用访谈者管理的问卷收集数据,并通过SPSS版本25和多变量逻辑回归进行分析。结果:387名参与者中,78.55%为女性。对预先指示的接受程度很低;只有27.13%的参与者指定了代理决策者,1.5%的人有生前遗嘱。很少有人与家人(28.68%)和医生(19.63%)讨论过临终愿望。只有27.39%的人与医生讨论过预期寿命。在没有参加过ACP的受访者中,大多数愿意讨论预期寿命(71.9%);与家人(81.2%)和医生(85.1%)讨论临终愿望;在接下来的1个月内完成预先指示(68%)并指定代理决策者(75.9%)。医生最倾向于发起ACP讨论。与接受高级指示(ADs)正相关的因素包括ECOG状态、与家人和医生的讨论。结论:非住院癌症患者对ad的摄取较低;此外,自我报告的ACP参与率较低。我们的研究强调了广泛的教育倡议和ACP进程标准化的必要性。建议:有必要进一步研究和制定战略,以提高肯尼亚恶性肿瘤患者对ACP的参与,从而提高他们的生活质量。
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
3.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
138
审稿时长
27 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信