BACKGROUND: Optimal patient decision making requires integration of patient values, goals, and preferences with information received from the physician. In the case of a life-threatening illness such as cancer, the weights placed on quality of life (QOL) and length of life (LOL) represent critical values. The objective of the current study was to describe cancer patient values regarding QOL and LOL and explore associations with communication preferences. METHODS:Patients with advanced cancer completed a computer-based survey before the initial consultation with a medical oncologist. Assessments included sociodemographics, physical and mental health state, values regarding quality and length of life, communication preferences, and cancer-related distress. RESULTS: Among 459 patients with advanced cancer, 55% placed equal valued on QOL and LOL, 27% preferred QOL, and 18% preferred LOL. Patients with a QOL preference had lower levels of cancer-related distress (P < .001). A QOL preference was also associated with older age (P = .001), male sex (P = .003), and higher educational level (P = .062). Patients who preferred LOL over QOL desired a more supportive and less pessimistic communication style from their oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that a values preference for LOL versus QOL may be simply measured, and is associated with wishes regarding the nature of oncologist communication. Awareness of these values during the clinical encounter could improve decision making by influencing the style and content of the communication between oncologists and their patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Optimal patient decision making requires integration of patient values, goals, and preferences with information received from the physician. In the case of a life-threatening illness such as cancer, the weights placed on quality of life (QOL) and length of life (LOL) represent critical values. The objective of the current study was to describe cancerpatient values regarding QOL and LOL and explore associations with communication preferences. METHODS:Patients with advanced cancer completed a computer-based survey before the initial consultation with a medical oncologist. Assessments included sociodemographics, physical and mental health state, values regarding quality and length of life, communication preferences, and cancer-related distress. RESULTS: Among 459 patients with advanced cancer, 55% placed equal valued on QOL and LOL, 27% preferred QOL, and 18% preferred LOL. Patients with a QOL preference had lower levels of cancer-related distress (P < .001). A QOL preference was also associated with older age (P = .001), male sex (P = .003), and higher educational level (P = .062). Patients who preferred LOL over QOL desired a more supportive and less pessimistic communication style from their oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that a values preference for LOL versus QOL may be simply measured, and is associated with wishes regarding the nature of oncologist communication. Awareness of these values during the clinical encounter could improve decision making by influencing the style and content of the communication between oncologists and their patients.
Authors: Wenchi Liang; Caroline B Burnett; Julia H Rowland; Neal J Meropol; Lynne Eggert; Yi-Ting Hwang; Rebecca A Silliman; Jane C Weeks; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer W Mack; Joanne Wolfe; E Francis Cook; Holcombe E Grier; Paul D Cleary; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christine Miaskowski; Melisa L Wong; Bruce A Cooper; Judy Mastick; Steven M Paul; Katherine Possin; Michael Steinman; Janine Cataldo; Laura B Dunn; Christine Ritchie Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Mitchell L Worley; Evan M Graboyes; Julie Blair; Suhael Momin; Kent E Armeson; Terry A Day; Andrew T Huang Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Gita Thanarajasingam; Lori M Minasian; Frederic Baron; Franco Cavalli; R Angelo De Claro; Amylou C Dueck; Tarec C El-Galaly; Neil Everest; Jan Geissler; Christian Gisselbrecht; John Gribben; Mary Horowitz; S Percy Ivy; Caron A Jacobson; Armand Keating; Paul G Kluetz; Aviva Krauss; Yok Lam Kwong; Richard F Little; Francois-Xavier Mahon; Matthew J Matasar; María-Victoria Mateos; Kristen McCullough; Robert S Miller; Mohamad Mohty; Philippe Moreau; Lindsay M Morton; Sumimasa Nagai; Simon Rule; Jeff Sloan; Pieter Sonneveld; Carrie A Thompson; Kyriaki Tzogani; Flora E van Leeuwen; Galina Velikova; Diego Villa; John R Wingard; Sophie Wintrich; John F Seymour; Thomas M Habermann Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 18.959
Authors: Laura J Havrilesky; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Jessie A Ehrisman; Andrew Berchuck; Fidel A Valea; Paula S Lee; Stephanie L Gaillard; Greg P Samsa; David Cella; Kevin P Weinfurt; Amy P Abernethy; Shelby D Reed Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 6.860