PURPOSE: To determine whether provision of a question prompt list (QPL) influences advanced cancer patients'/caregivers' questions and discussion of topics relevant to end-of-life care during consultations with a palliative care (PC) physician. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included patients randomly assigned to standard consultation or provision of QPL before consultation, with endorsement of the QPL by the physician during the consultation. Consecutive eligible patients with advanced cancer referred to 15 PC physicians from nine Australian PC services were invited to participate. Consultations were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed by blinded coders; patients completed questionnaires before, within 24 hours, and 3 weeks after the consultation. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients participated (92 QPL, 82 control). Compared with controls, QPL patients and caregivers asked twice as many questions (for patients, ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.2; P < .0001), and patients discussed 23% more issues covered by the QPL (95% CI, 11% to 37%; P < .0001). QPL patients asked more prognostic questions (ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.0; P = .004) and discussed more prognostic (ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8, P = .003) and end-of-life issues (30% v 10%; P = .001). Fewer QPL patients had unmet information needs about the future (21 = 4.14; P = .04), which was the area of greatest unmet information need. QPL consultations (average, 38 minutes) were longer (P = .002) than controls (average, 31 minutes). No differences between groups were observed in anxiety or patient/physician satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Providing a QPL and physician endorsement of its use assists terminally ill cancer patients and their caregivers to ask questions and promotes discussion about prognosis and end-of-life issues, without creating patient anxiety or impairing satisfaction.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine whether provision of a question prompt list (QPL) influences advanced cancerpatients'/caregivers' questions and discussion of topics relevant to end-of-life care during consultations with a palliative care (PC) physician. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included patients randomly assigned to standard consultation or provision of QPL before consultation, with endorsement of the QPL by the physician during the consultation. Consecutive eligible patients with advanced cancer referred to 15 PC physicians from nine Australian PC services were invited to participate. Consultations were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed by blinded coders; patients completed questionnaires before, within 24 hours, and 3 weeks after the consultation. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients participated (92 QPL, 82 control). Compared with controls, QPL patients and caregivers asked twice as many questions (for patients, ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.2; P < .0001), and patients discussed 23% more issues covered by the QPL (95% CI, 11% to 37%; P < .0001). QPL patients asked more prognostic questions (ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.0; P = .004) and discussed more prognostic (ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8, P = .003) and end-of-life issues (30% v 10%; P = .001). Fewer QPL patients had unmet information needs about the future (21 = 4.14; P = .04), which was the area of greatest unmet information need. QPL consultations (average, 38 minutes) were longer (P = .002) than controls (average, 31 minutes). No differences between groups were observed in anxiety or patient/physician satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Providing a QPL and physician endorsement of its use assists terminally ill cancerpatients and their caregivers to ask questions and promotes discussion about prognosis and end-of-life issues, without creating patientanxiety or impairing satisfaction.
Authors: Monica E Lemmon; Hanna E Huffstetler; Pamela Donohue; Madelaine Katz; Mary C Barks; Emma Schindler; Debra Brandon; Renee D Boss; Peter A Ubel Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 1.987
Authors: Christopher R Manz; Ravi B Parikh; Chalanda N Evans; Corey Chivers; Susan H Regli; Justin E Bekelman; Dylan Small; Charles A L Rareshide; Nina O'Connor; Lynn M Schuchter; Lawrence N Shulman; Mitesh S Patel Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Robert A Bell; Debora A Paterniti; Rahman Azari; Paul R Duberstein; Ronald M Epstein; Aaron B Rochlen; Megan Dwight Johnson; Sharon E Orrange; Christina Slee; Richard L Kravitz Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-08-11
Authors: Oluwakemi A Fawole; Sydney M Dy; Renee F Wilson; Brandyn D Lau; Kathryn A Martinez; Colleen C Apostol; Daniela Vollenweider; Eric B Bass; Rebecca A Aslakson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Natasha Michael; Clare O'Callaghan; Josephine Clayton; Annabel Pollard; Nikola Stepanov; Odette Spruyt; Michael Michael; David Ball Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Richard L Street; Christina Slee; Donna K Kalauokalani; Dionne Evans Dean; Daniel J Tancredi; Richard L Kravitz Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-12-04