Literature DB >> 18323553

How should we design supportive cancer care? The patient's perspective.

David Casarett1, Jessica Fishman, Peter J O'Dwyer, Frances K Barg, Mary Naylor, David A Asch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Hospice services are designed to meet the needs of patients near the end of life. Although so-called open-access hospice programs and bridge programs are beginning to offer these services to patients who are still receiving treatment, it is not known whether they best meet patients' needs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred adult patients receiving treatment for cancer completed interviews in which each patient's value or ability for supportive care services were calculated from the choices that they made among combinations of those services. Preferences for five traditional hospice services and six alternative supportive care services were measured, and patients were followed up for 6 months or until death.
RESULTS: Patients' utilities for alternative services were higher than those for traditional hospice services (0.53 v 0.39; sign-rank test P < .001). Alternative services were also preferred among patients with poor functional status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score > 2; n = 54; 0.65 v 0.48; P < .001) and among those who were in the last 6 months of life (0.68 v 0.56; sign-rank test P = .003). Even patients who were willing to forgo cancer treatment (n = 38; 13%) preferred alternative services (3.1 v 1.8; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Patients who are receiving active treatment for cancer, and even those who are willing to stop treatment, express a clear preference for alternative supportive care services over traditional hospice services. Supportive care programs for patients with advanced cancer should reconsider the services that they offer and might seek to include novel services in addition to, or perhaps instead of, traditional hospice services.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18323553     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.8371

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  6 in total

1.  Comparing three life-limiting diseases: does diagnosis matter or is sick, sick?

Authors:  Karen E Steinhauser; Robert M Arnold; Maren K Olsen; Jennifer Lindquist; Judith Hays; Laura L Wood; Allison M Burton; James A Tulsky
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 3.612

2.  Functional trajectories in the year before hospice.

Authors:  Hans F Stabenau; Laura J Morrison; Evelyne A Gahbauer; Linda Leo-Summers; Heather G Allore; Thomas M Gill
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  Cost-Effectiveness of Pertuzumab in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Ben Y Durkee; Yushen Qian; Erqi L Pollom; Martin T King; Sara A Dudley; Jenny L Shaffer; Daniel T Chang; Iris C Gibbs; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Kathleen C Horst
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  [Best supportive care in head and neck cancer].

Authors:  Michaela Salzwimmer
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2008

5.  Transfusion dependence, use of hospice services, and quality of end-of-life care in leukemia.

Authors:  Thomas W LeBlanc; Pamela C Egan; Adam J Olszewski
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 25.476

6.  Use of symptom-focused oncological cancer therapies in hospices: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Ulrich Kaiser; Ursula Vehling-Kaiser; Fabian Kück; Nicolae-Catalin Mechie; Ana Hoffmann; Florian Kaiser
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2020-09-12       Impact factor: 3.234

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.