在新加坡癌症中心研究成本作为癌症患者及其护理人员选择生活质量和数量的一个因素

K. Tay, L. Rachel, Sim Shin Wei Dorsett, Sumytra Menon, R. Kanesvaran, R. Puvanendran, L. Krishna
{"title":"在新加坡癌症中心研究成本作为癌症患者及其护理人员选择生活质量和数量的一个因素","authors":"K. Tay, L. Rachel, Sim Shin Wei Dorsett, Sumytra Menon, R. Kanesvaran, R. Puvanendran, L. Krishna","doi":"10.4172/2165-7386.1000276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Treatment costs and sociocultural concerns play a significant role in decisions regarding Quantity of Life (QuoL) options that seek to prolong life, such as chemotherapy, or a Quality of Life (QoL) approach where the patient refuses available treatments such as chemotherapy in favour of maximizing comfort and quality of life at the end of life in Singapore. Deciphering the reasons behind such care decisions is often difficult because of local social taboos regarding discussions about death and dying. Objectives: To scrutinize the rationale behind QuoL and QoL within the Singapore context and delineate the impact of cost upon such decisions. Methods: To overcome local sociocultural taboos about discussing death and dying with patients, participants watched a video vignette of a family discussing treatment options for their mother (Mrs Tan) who was recently diagnosed with terminal cancer. Participants were asked what advice they would offer Mrs Tan regarding her treatment plans in the face of a poor prognosis, incurable cancer and costly treatment. Participants were then asked what their advice would be when the costs of treatment was covered by the patient’s insurance policy. Their responses were evaluated using Grounded Theory analysis. Setting/Subjects: 132 oncology patients and their caregivers were recruited from an ambulatory treatment unit at a tertiary oncology centre. Results: 63 (47.7%) of 132 participants advised Mrs Tan to opt for the QoL approach but when treatment costs were covered by insurance, only 5 (3.8%) of 132 participants chose QoL, whilst 108 (81.8%) participants chose QuoL options. Conclusion: Whilst cost is a significant factor in end of life decision making, strong sociocultural influences that perceive QoL approaches as ‘giving up’ ultimately determines the course of care.","PeriodicalId":91127,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative care & medicine","volume":"2016 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2165-7386.1000276","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Studying Cost as a Factor in the Choice between Quality and Quantity of Life amongst Patients with Cancer and their Caregivers at a Cancer Centre in Singapore\",\"authors\":\"K. Tay, L. Rachel, Sim Shin Wei Dorsett, Sumytra Menon, R. Kanesvaran, R. Puvanendran, L. Krishna\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2165-7386.1000276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Treatment costs and sociocultural concerns play a significant role in decisions regarding Quantity of Life (QuoL) options that seek to prolong life, such as chemotherapy, or a Quality of Life (QoL) approach where the patient refuses available treatments such as chemotherapy in favour of maximizing comfort and quality of life at the end of life in Singapore. Deciphering the reasons behind such care decisions is often difficult because of local social taboos regarding discussions about death and dying. Objectives: To scrutinize the rationale behind QuoL and QoL within the Singapore context and delineate the impact of cost upon such decisions. Methods: To overcome local sociocultural taboos about discussing death and dying with patients, participants watched a video vignette of a family discussing treatment options for their mother (Mrs Tan) who was recently diagnosed with terminal cancer. Participants were asked what advice they would offer Mrs Tan regarding her treatment plans in the face of a poor prognosis, incurable cancer and costly treatment. Participants were then asked what their advice would be when the costs of treatment was covered by the patient’s insurance policy. Their responses were evaluated using Grounded Theory analysis. Setting/Subjects: 132 oncology patients and their caregivers were recruited from an ambulatory treatment unit at a tertiary oncology centre. Results: 63 (47.7%) of 132 participants advised Mrs Tan to opt for the QoL approach but when treatment costs were covered by insurance, only 5 (3.8%) of 132 participants chose QoL, whilst 108 (81.8%) participants chose QuoL options. Conclusion: Whilst cost is a significant factor in end of life decision making, strong sociocultural influences that perceive QoL approaches as ‘giving up’ ultimately determines the course of care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of palliative care & medicine\",\"volume\":\"2016 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2165-7386.1000276\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of palliative care & medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7386.1000276\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative care & medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7386.1000276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:在新加坡,治疗费用和社会文化问题在寻求延长生命的生命量(QuoL)选择的决策中起着重要作用,例如化疗,或者在患者拒绝化疗等现有治疗的情况下,选择生活质量(QoL)方法,以最大限度地提高生命末期的舒适度和生活质量。由于当地关于死亡和临终的社会禁忌,要解释这些护理决定背后的原因往往很困难。目的:在新加坡的背景下,仔细研究生活质量和生活质量背后的基本原理,并描述成本对此类决策的影响。方法:为了克服当地关于与病人讨论死亡和临终的社会文化禁忌,参与者观看了一个家庭讨论其母亲(谭女士)的治疗方案的视频短片,她最近被诊断为癌症晚期。参与者被问及面对预后不佳、无法治愈的癌症和昂贵的治疗方案,他们会给谭女士什么建议。然后,参与者被问及当治疗费用由患者的保险政策支付时,他们的建议是什么。他们的反应是用扎根理论分析来评估的。环境/对象:从三级肿瘤中心的门诊治疗单位招募132名肿瘤患者及其护理人员。结果:132名参与者中有63名(47.7%)建议谭女士选择生活质量方法,但当治疗费用由保险支付时,132名参与者中只有5名(3.8%)选择生活质量,而108名(81.8%)参与者选择生活质量选项。结论:虽然成本是临终决策的重要因素,但强烈的社会文化影响将生活质量方法视为“放弃”最终决定了护理过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Studying Cost as a Factor in the Choice between Quality and Quantity of Life amongst Patients with Cancer and their Caregivers at a Cancer Centre in Singapore
Background: Treatment costs and sociocultural concerns play a significant role in decisions regarding Quantity of Life (QuoL) options that seek to prolong life, such as chemotherapy, or a Quality of Life (QoL) approach where the patient refuses available treatments such as chemotherapy in favour of maximizing comfort and quality of life at the end of life in Singapore. Deciphering the reasons behind such care decisions is often difficult because of local social taboos regarding discussions about death and dying. Objectives: To scrutinize the rationale behind QuoL and QoL within the Singapore context and delineate the impact of cost upon such decisions. Methods: To overcome local sociocultural taboos about discussing death and dying with patients, participants watched a video vignette of a family discussing treatment options for their mother (Mrs Tan) who was recently diagnosed with terminal cancer. Participants were asked what advice they would offer Mrs Tan regarding her treatment plans in the face of a poor prognosis, incurable cancer and costly treatment. Participants were then asked what their advice would be when the costs of treatment was covered by the patient’s insurance policy. Their responses were evaluated using Grounded Theory analysis. Setting/Subjects: 132 oncology patients and their caregivers were recruited from an ambulatory treatment unit at a tertiary oncology centre. Results: 63 (47.7%) of 132 participants advised Mrs Tan to opt for the QoL approach but when treatment costs were covered by insurance, only 5 (3.8%) of 132 participants chose QoL, whilst 108 (81.8%) participants chose QuoL options. Conclusion: Whilst cost is a significant factor in end of life decision making, strong sociocultural influences that perceive QoL approaches as ‘giving up’ ultimately determines the course of care.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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