BACKGROUND: Cultural beliefs and values influence treatment preferences for and experiences with end-of-life (EOL) care among racial and ethnic groups. Within-group variations, however, may exist based on level of acculturation. OBJECTIVES: To examine the extent to which EOL treatment factors (EOL treatment preferences and physician-caregiver communication) and select psychosocial factors (mental health, complementary therapies, and internal and external social support) differ based on the level of acculturation of caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: One hundred sixty-seven primary caregivers of patients with advanced cancer were interviewed as part of the multisite, prospective Coping with Cancer Study. RESULTS: Caregivers who were less acculturated were more positively predisposed to use of a feeding tube at EOL (odds ratio [OR] 0.99 [p = 0.05]), were more likely to perceive that they received too much information from their doctors (OR 0.95 [p = 0.05]), were less likely to use mental health services (OR 1.03 [p = 0.003] and OR 1.02 [p = 0.02]), and desire additional services (OR 1.03 [p = 0.10] to 1.05 [p = 0.009]) than their more acculturated counterparts. Additionally, caregivers who were less acculturated cared for patients who were less likely to report having a living will (OR 1.03 [p = 0.0003]) or durable power of attorney for health care (OR 1.02 [p = 0.007]) than more acculturated caregivers. Caregivers who were less acculturated felt their religious and spiritual needs were supported by both the community (beta -0.28 [p = 0.0003]) and medical system (beta -0.38 [p < 0.0001]), had higher degrees of self-efficacy (beta -0.22 [p = 0.005]), and had stronger family relationships and support (beta -0.27 [p = 0.0004]). CONCLUSIONS: The level of acculturation of caregivers of patients with advanced cancer does contribute to differences in EOL preferences and EOL medical decision-making.
BACKGROUND: Cultural beliefs and values influence treatment preferences for and experiences with end-of-life (EOL) care among racial and ethnic groups. Within-group variations, however, may exist based on level of acculturation. OBJECTIVES: To examine the extent to which EOL treatment factors (EOL treatment preferences and physician-caregiver communication) and select psychosocial factors (mental health, complementary therapies, and internal and external social support) differ based on the level of acculturation of caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: One hundred sixty-seven primary caregivers of patients with advanced cancer were interviewed as part of the multisite, prospective Coping with Cancer Study. RESULTS: Caregivers who were less acculturated were more positively predisposed to use of a feeding tube at EOL (odds ratio [OR] 0.99 [p = 0.05]), were more likely to perceive that they received too much information from their doctors (OR 0.95 [p = 0.05]), were less likely to use mental health services (OR 1.03 [p = 0.003] and OR 1.02 [p = 0.02]), and desire additional services (OR 1.03 [p = 0.10] to 1.05 [p = 0.009]) than their more acculturated counterparts. Additionally, caregivers who were less acculturated cared for patients who were less likely to report having a living will (OR 1.03 [p = 0.0003]) or durable power of attorney for health care (OR 1.02 [p = 0.007]) than more acculturated caregivers. Caregivers who were less acculturated felt their religious and spiritual needs were supported by both the community (beta -0.28 [p = 0.0003]) and medical system (beta -0.38 [p < 0.0001]), had higher degrees of self-efficacy (beta -0.22 [p = 0.005]), and had stronger family relationships and support (beta -0.27 [p = 0.0004]). CONCLUSIONS: The level of acculturation of caregivers of patients with advanced cancer does contribute to differences in EOL preferences and EOL medical decision-making.
Authors: Karen E Lasser; David U Himmelstein; Steffie J Woolhandler; Danny McCormick; David H Bor Journal: Int J Health Serv Date: 2002 Impact factor: 1.663
Authors: Robin M Weinick; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Lisa Cacari Stone; Alexander N Ortega; Helen Burstin Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Craig C Earle; Bridget A Neville; Mary Beth Landrum; John Z Ayanian; Susan D Block; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Etienne Phipps; Gala True; Diana Harris; Umi Chong; William Tester; Stephen I Chavin; Leonard E Braitman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher T Su; Ryan D McMahan; Brie A Williams; Rashmi K Sharma; Rebecca L Sudore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Megan C Thomas Hebdon; Lorinda A Coombs; Pamela Reed; Tracy E Crane; Terry A Badger Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Heather Stieglitz; Yankel M Kupersztoch; M Elizabeth Paulk; Yookyung Kim; Ingrid T Katz; Francisco Munoz; Rachel B Jimenez; Jan Mutchler; Lorna Rivera; Anthony L Back; Holly G Prigerson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 3.240