BACKGROUND: Although spiritual care is associated with less aggressive medical care at the end of life (EOL), it remains infrequent. It is unclear if the omission of spiritual care impacts EOL costs. METHODS: A prospective, multisite study of 339 advanced cancer patients accrued subjects from September 2002 to August 2007 from an outpatient setting and followed them until death. Spiritual care was measured by patients' reports that the health care team supported their religious/spiritual needs. EOL costs in the last week were compared among patients reporting that their spiritual needs were inadequately supported versus those who reported that their needs were well supported. Analyses were adjusted for confounders (eg, EOL discussions). RESULTS: Patients reporting that their religious/spiritual needs were inadequately supported by clinic staff were less likely to receive a week or more of hospice (54% vs 72.8%; P = .01) and more likely to die in an intensive care unit (ICU) (5.1% vs 1.0%, P = .03). Among minorities and high religious coping patients, those reporting poorly supported religious/spiritual needs received more ICU care (11.3% vs 1.2%, P = .03 and 13.1% vs 1.6%, P = .02, respectively), received less hospice (43.% vs 75.3% ≥1 week of hospice, P = .01 and 45.3% vs 73.1%, P = .007, respectively), and had increased ICU deaths (11.2% vs 1.2%, P = .03 and 7.7% vs 0.6%, P = .009, respectively). EOL costs were higher when patients reported that their spiritual needs were inadequately supported ($4947 vs $2833, P = .03), particularly among minorities ($6533 vs $2276, P = .02) and high religious copers ($6344 vs $2431, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients reporting that their spiritual needs are not well supported by the health care team have higher EOL costs, particularly among minorities and high religious coping patients.
BACKGROUND: Although spiritual care is associated with less aggressive medical care at the end of life (EOL), it remains infrequent. It is unclear if the omission of spiritual care impacts EOL costs. METHODS: A prospective, multisite study of 339 advanced cancerpatients accrued subjects from September 2002 to August 2007 from an outpatient setting and followed them until death. Spiritual care was measured by patients' reports that the health care team supported their religious/spiritual needs. EOL costs in the last week were compared among patients reporting that their spiritual needs were inadequately supported versus those who reported that their needs were well supported. Analyses were adjusted for confounders (eg, EOL discussions). RESULTS:Patients reporting that their religious/spiritual needs were inadequately supported by clinic staff were less likely to receive a week or more of hospice (54% vs 72.8%; P = .01) and more likely to die in an intensive care unit (ICU) (5.1% vs 1.0%, P = .03). Among minorities and high religious coping patients, those reporting poorly supported religious/spiritual needs received more ICU care (11.3% vs 1.2%, P = .03 and 13.1% vs 1.6%, P = .02, respectively), received less hospice (43.% vs 75.3% ≥1 week of hospice, P = .01 and 45.3% vs 73.1%, P = .007, respectively), and had increased ICU deaths (11.2% vs 1.2%, P = .03 and 7.7% vs 0.6%, P = .009, respectively). EOL costs were higher when patients reported that their spiritual needs were inadequately supported ($4947 vs $2833, P = .03), particularly among minorities ($6533 vs $2276, P = .02) and high religious copers ($6344 vs $2431, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS:Cancerpatients reporting that their spiritual needs are not well supported by the health care team have higher EOL costs, particularly among minorities and high religious coping patients.
Authors: A Moadel; C Morgan; A Fatone; J Grennan; J Carter; G Laruffa; A Skummy; J Dutcher Journal: Psychooncology Date: 1999 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.894
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: Ezekiel J Emanuel; Arlene Ash; Wei Yu; Gail Gazelle; Norman G Levinsky; Olga Saynina; Mark McClellan; Mark Moskowitz Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002 Aug 12-26
Authors: Angelika A Zollfrank; Kelly M Trevino; Wendy Cadge; Michael J Balboni; Mary Martha Thiel; George Fitchett; Kathleen Gallivan; Tyler VanderWeele; Tracy A Balboni Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Virginia T LeBaron; Amanda Cooke; Jonathan Resmini; Alexander Garinther; Vinca Chow; Rebecca Quiñones; Sarah Noveroske; Andrew Baccari; Patrick T Smith; John Peteet; Tracy A Balboni; Michael J Balboni Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Allison Kestenbaum; Michele Shields; Jennifer James; Will Hocker; Stefana Morgan; Shweta Karve; Michael W Rabow; Laura B Dunn Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Karen H K Yeary; Kassandra I Alcaraz; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Chungyi Chiu; Shannon M Christy; Katarina Friberg Felsted; Qian Lu; Crystal Y Lumpkins; Kevin S Masters; Robert L Newton; Crystal L Park; Megan J Shen; Valerie J Silfee; Betina Yanez; Jean Yi Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Alexia M Torke; George Fitchett; Saneta Maiko; Emily S Burke; James E Slaven; Beth Newton Watson; Steven Ivy; Patrick O Monahan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Melissa M Garrido; Tracy A Balboni; Paul K Maciejewski; Yuhua Bao; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Rajshekhar Chakraborty; Areej R El-Jawahri; Mark R Litzow; Karen L Syrjala; Aric D Parnes; Shahrukh K Hashmi Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2017-10
Authors: Michael J Balboni; Adam Sullivan; Adaugo Amobi; Andrea C Phelps; Daniel P Gorman; Angelika Zollfrank; John R Peteet; Holly G Prigerson; Tyler J Vanderweele; Tracy A Balboni Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 44.544