PURPOSE: Although advance care planning (ACP) is recognised as integral to quality cancer care, it remains poorly integrated in many settings. Given cancer patients' unpredictable disease trajectories and equivocal treatment options, a disease-specific ACP model may be necessary. This study examines how Australian cancer patients consider ACP. Responses will inform the development of an Australian Cancer Centre's ACP programme. METHODS: A constructivist research approach with grounded theory design was applied. Eighteen adults from lung and gastro-intestinal tumour streams participated. Participants first described their initial understanding of ACP, received ACP information, and finally completed a semi-structured interview assisted by the vignette technique. Qualitative inter-rater reliability was integrated. RESULTS: Participants initially had scant knowledge of ACP. On obtaining further information, their responses indicated that: For cancer patients, ACP is an individualised, dynamic, and shared process characterised by myriad variations in choices to actualise, relinquish, and/or reject its individual components (medical enduring power of attorney, statement of choices, refusal of treatment certificate, and advanced directive). Actualisation of each component involves considering, possibly conversing about, planning, and communicating a decision, usually iteratively. Reactions can change over time and are informed by values, memories, personalities, health perceptions, appreciation of prognoses, and trust or doubts in their substitute decision makers. CONCLUSION: Findings endorse the value of routinely, though sensitively, discussing ACP with cancer patients at various time points across their disease trajectory. Nonetheless, ACP may also be relinquished or rejected and ongoing offers for ACP in some patients may be offensive to their value system.
PURPOSE: Although advance care planning (ACP) is recognised as integral to quality cancer care, it remains poorly integrated in many settings. Given cancerpatients' unpredictable disease trajectories and equivocal treatment options, a disease-specific ACP model may be necessary. This study examines how Australian cancerpatients consider ACP. Responses will inform the development of an Australian Cancer Centre's ACP programme. METHODS: A constructivist research approach with grounded theory design was applied. Eighteen adults from lung and gastro-intestinal tumour streams participated. Participants first described their initial understanding of ACP, received ACP information, and finally completed a semi-structured interview assisted by the vignette technique. Qualitative inter-rater reliability was integrated. RESULTS:Participants initially had scant knowledge of ACP. On obtaining further information, their responses indicated that: For cancerpatients, ACP is an individualised, dynamic, and shared process characterised by myriad variations in choices to actualise, relinquish, and/or reject its individual components (medical enduring power of attorney, statement of choices, refusal of treatment certificate, and advanced directive). Actualisation of each component involves considering, possibly conversing about, planning, and communicating a decision, usually iteratively. Reactions can change over time and are informed by values, memories, personalities, health perceptions, appreciation of prognoses, and trust or doubts in their substitute decision makers. CONCLUSION: Findings endorse the value of routinely, though sensitively, discussing ACP with cancerpatients at various time points across their disease trajectory. Nonetheless, ACP may also be relinquished or rejected and ongoing offers for ACP in some patients may be offensive to their value system.
Authors: Josephine M Clayton; Phyllis N Butow; Robert M Arnold; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lindsay A Dow; Robin K Matsuyama; V Ramakrishnan; Laura Kuhn; Elizabeth B Lamont; Laurel Lyckholm; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rebecca L Sudore; Adam D Schickedanz; C Seth Landefeld; Brie A Williams; Karla Lindquist; Steven Z Pantilat; Dean Schillinger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Melissa A Clark; Miles Ott; Michelle L Rogers; Mary C Politi; Susan C Miller; Laura Moynihan; Katina Robison; Ashley Stuckey; Don Dizon Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Martha A Cresswell; Carole A Robinson; Gillian Fyles; Joan L Bottorff; Rebecca Sudore Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Shelley A Johns; Kathleen Beck-Coon; Patrick V Stutz; Tasneem L Talib; Kelly Chinh; Ann H Cottingham; Karen Schmidt; Cleveland Shields; Madison E Stout; Timothy E Stump; Patrick O Monahan; Alexia M Torke; Paul R Helft Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2019-08-04 Impact factor: 2.500