PURPOSE: To determine whether the use of a goals-of-care video to supplement a verbal description can improve end-of-life decision making for patients with cancer. METHODS:Fifty participants with malignant glioma were randomly assigned to either a verbal narrative of goals-of-care options at the end of life (control), or a video after the same verbal narrative (intervention) in this randomized controlled trial. The video depicts three levels of medical care: life-prolonging care (cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], ventilation), basic care (hospitalization, no CPR), and comfort care (symptom relief). The primary study outcome was participants' preferences for end-of-life care. The secondary outcome was participants' uncertainty regarding decision making (score range, 3 to 15; higher score indicating less uncertainty). Participants' comfort level with the video was also measured. RESULTS:Fifty participants were randomly assigned to either the verbal narrative (n = 27) or video (n = 23). After the verbal description, 25.9% of participants preferred life-prolonging care, 51.9% basic care, and 22.2% comfort care. In the video arm, no participants preferred life-prolonging care, 4.4% preferred basic care, 91.3% preferred comfort care, and 4.4% were uncertain (P < .0001). The mean uncertainty score was higher in the video group than in the verbal group (13.7 v 11.5, respectively; P < .002). In the intervention arm, 82.6% of participants reported being very comfortable watching the video. CONCLUSION: Compared with participants who only heard a verbal description, participants who viewed a goals-of-care video were more likely to prefer comfort care and avoid CPR, and were more certain of their end-of-life decision making. Participants reported feeling comfortable watching the video.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine whether the use of a goals-of-care video to supplement a verbal description can improve end-of-life decision making for patients with cancer. METHODS: Fifty participants with malignant glioma were randomly assigned to either a verbal narrative of goals-of-care options at the end of life (control), or a video after the same verbal narrative (intervention) in this randomized controlled trial. The video depicts three levels of medical care: life-prolonging care (cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], ventilation), basic care (hospitalization, no CPR), and comfort care (symptom relief). The primary study outcome was participants' preferences for end-of-life care. The secondary outcome was participants' uncertainty regarding decision making (score range, 3 to 15; higher score indicating less uncertainty). Participants' comfort level with the video was also measured. RESULTS: Fifty participants were randomly assigned to either the verbal narrative (n = 27) or video (n = 23). After the verbal description, 25.9% of participants preferred life-prolonging care, 51.9% basic care, and 22.2% comfort care. In the video arm, no participants preferred life-prolonging care, 4.4% preferred basic care, 91.3% preferred comfort care, and 4.4% were uncertain (P < .0001). The mean uncertainty score was higher in the video group than in the verbal group (13.7 v 11.5, respectively; P < .002). In the intervention arm, 82.6% of participants reported being very comfortable watching the video. CONCLUSION: Compared with participants who only heard a verbal description, participants who viewed a goals-of-care video were more likely to prefer comfort care and avoid CPR, and were more certain of their end-of-life decision making. Participants reported feeling comfortable watching the video.
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Angelo E Volandes; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; E Francis Cook; Shimon Shaykevich; Elmer D Abbo; Muriel R Gillick Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-04-23
Authors: Anthony L Back; Wendy G Anderson; Lynn Bunch; Lisa A Marr; James A Wallace; Holly B Yang; Robert M Arnold Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Angelo E Volandes; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Michael J Barry; Muriel R Gillick; Kenneth L Minaker; Yuchiao Chang; E Francis Cook; Elmer D Abbo; Areej El-Jawahri; Susan L Mitchell Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-05-28
Authors: Angelo E Volandes; Gary H Brandeis; Aretha Delight Davis; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Muriel R Gillick; Yuchiao Chang; Elizabeth S Walker-Corkery; Eileen Mann; Susan L Mitchell Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Wendy G Anderson; Lynn A Flint; Jay R Horton; Kimberly Johnson; Michelle Mourad; Bradley A Sharpe Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Simon M Cohen; Angelo E Volandes; Michele L Shaffer; Laura C Hanson; Daniel Habtemariam; Susan L Mitchell Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 3.612