A Person-Centered Approach to Oncology and Palliative Care

P. Glare
{"title":"A Person-Centered Approach to Oncology and Palliative Care","authors":"P. Glare","doi":"10.5750/ijpcm.v8i1.728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The advent of evidence-based medicine (EBM) saw a marked improvement in clinical decision making when compared to the “this is what works best in my experience” approach, which preceded it. Aside from the fact that there is goodquality evidence available for only a fraction of treatments, a limitation of EBM is that it focuses primarily on identifying the best treatment of a disease and does not allow for differences in patients’ goals, priorities, and expectations or how they cope with their illness. This biomedical focus of EBM is particularly problematic for patients with chronic, incurable illnesses (which include many cancers), for whom a person-centered approach is superior. This article explores what it means to take a person centered approach to oncology and palliative care. In particular, the ambiguity of the term “personalized medicine” in oncology is considered, and seen to be represent a narrow version of “personalized”—in the sense of personalized car number plates and monogrammed shirts—not personalized in the sense of the treatment reflecting the patient’s values, goals, and expectations for care. Furthermore, taking a person-centered approach is an active process that does not equate with acquiescing to whatever the patient requests. As an example, in the emotional, high stakes decision to transition from cancer treatment to palliative care/ hospice or not, patients may reject hospice even when it’s in their best interests (i.e., hospice enrolment). A person-centered physician will understand this situation and attempt to advise the patient to choosing the initially disliked option that may be ultimately the right choice.","PeriodicalId":89680,"journal":{"name":"International journal of person centered medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of person centered medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ijpcm.v8i1.728","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The advent of evidence-based medicine (EBM) saw a marked improvement in clinical decision making when compared to the “this is what works best in my experience” approach, which preceded it. Aside from the fact that there is goodquality evidence available for only a fraction of treatments, a limitation of EBM is that it focuses primarily on identifying the best treatment of a disease and does not allow for differences in patients’ goals, priorities, and expectations or how they cope with their illness. This biomedical focus of EBM is particularly problematic for patients with chronic, incurable illnesses (which include many cancers), for whom a person-centered approach is superior. This article explores what it means to take a person centered approach to oncology and palliative care. In particular, the ambiguity of the term “personalized medicine” in oncology is considered, and seen to be represent a narrow version of “personalized”—in the sense of personalized car number plates and monogrammed shirts—not personalized in the sense of the treatment reflecting the patient’s values, goals, and expectations for care. Furthermore, taking a person-centered approach is an active process that does not equate with acquiescing to whatever the patient requests. As an example, in the emotional, high stakes decision to transition from cancer treatment to palliative care/ hospice or not, patients may reject hospice even when it’s in their best interests (i.e., hospice enrolment). A person-centered physician will understand this situation and attempt to advise the patient to choosing the initially disliked option that may be ultimately the right choice.
以人为本的肿瘤学和姑息治疗方法
循证医学(EBM)的出现与之前的“这是我经验中最有效的”方法相比,在临床决策方面有了显著的改善。除了只有一小部分治疗方法有高质量的证据这一事实外,循证医学的一个局限性是,它主要侧重于确定疾病的最佳治疗方法,而不考虑患者目标、优先事项、期望或他们如何应对疾病的差异。EBM的这种生物医学重点对慢性不治之症(包括许多癌症)患者来说尤其成问题,对他们来说,以人为本的方法更优越。本文探讨了以人为本的肿瘤学和姑息治疗方法的意义。特别是,在肿瘤学中,“个性化医疗”一词的模糊性被认为是“个性化”的一个狭隘版本——个性化车牌和绣有字母的衬衫——而不是个性化,因为治疗反映了患者的价值观、目标和对护理的期望。此外,采取以人为本的方法是一个积极的过程,并不等同于默许病人的任何要求。例如,在从癌症治疗过渡到姑息治疗/临终关怀或不接受临终关怀的情绪化、高风险的决定中,患者可能会拒绝临终关怀,即使这符合他们的最佳利益(即。(临终关怀登记)。以人为本的医生会理解这种情况,并试图建议患者选择最初不喜欢的选择,但最终可能是正确的选择。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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