BACKGROUND: Dignity Therapy is a brief psychotherapy performed with patients at the end of life. Previous research has examined the effects of Dignity Therapy with patients and family, but none has examined hospice staff perceptions of the treatment. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to investigate hospice staff perspectives regarding the impact and value of Dignity Therapy when provided as a clinical service. METHODS: Eighteen hospice staff members who referred patients for Dignity Therapy were asked to rate the value of the treatment. The staff also completed qualitative interviews to gather more detailed information about their most common reasons for referral; their perspectives regarding the therapy's impact on patients; and their beliefs about the costs, benefits, and barriers to treatment. The staff interview responses were qualitatively analyzed to measure the most common emergent themes. RESULTS: Hospice staff members rated Dignity Therapy as worthwhile, and somewhat able to reduce patients' pain and suffering. The vast majority (92%) of hospice staff members believed the treatment would help patients' families in the future, and 100% reported a desire to recommend the treatment to others. Qualitative analyses revealed that staff commonly viewed Dignity Therapy as a positive, affirming experience for patients and felt the emotional or time requirements of the treatment were justified. As a result of offering the service, the staff noted an increased connection with patients and related increases in job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Hospice staff believe Dignity Therapy is a worthwhile service that offers a positive, quality-enhancing experience for patients at the end of life. The addition of this clinical service may further enhance staff members' job satisfaction and connection with patients. These findings provide useful information for clinicians or organizational leaders who consider offering Dignity Therapy in their setting.
BACKGROUND: Dignity Therapy is a brief psychotherapy performed with patients at the end of life. Previous research has examined the effects of Dignity Therapy with patients and family, but none has examined hospice staff perceptions of the treatment. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to investigate hospice staff perspectives regarding the impact and value of Dignity Therapy when provided as a clinical service. METHODS: Eighteen hospice staff members who referred patients for Dignity Therapy were asked to rate the value of the treatment. The staff also completed qualitative interviews to gather more detailed information about their most common reasons for referral; their perspectives regarding the therapy's impact on patients; and their beliefs about the costs, benefits, and barriers to treatment. The staff interview responses were qualitatively analyzed to measure the most common emergent themes. RESULTS: Hospice staff members rated Dignity Therapy as worthwhile, and somewhat able to reduce patients' pain and suffering. The vast majority (92%) of hospice staff members believed the treatment would help patients' families in the future, and 100% reported a desire to recommend the treatment to others. Qualitative analyses revealed that staff commonly viewed Dignity Therapy as a positive, affirming experience for patients and felt the emotional or time requirements of the treatment were justified. As a result of offering the service, the staff noted an increased connection with patients and related increases in job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Hospice staff believe Dignity Therapy is a worthwhile service that offers a positive, quality-enhancing experience for patients at the end of life. The addition of this clinical service may further enhance staff members' job satisfaction and connection with patients. These findings provide useful information for clinicians or organizational leaders who consider offering Dignity Therapy in their setting.
Authors: Harvey Max Chochinov; Thomas Hack; Thomas Hassard; Linda J Kristjanson; Susan McClement; Mike Harlos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harvey Max Chochinov; Linda J Kristjanson; William Breitbart; Susan McClement; Thomas F Hack; Tom Hassard; Mike Harlos Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Susan McClement; Harvey Max Chochinov; Thomas Hack; Thomas Hassard; Linda Joan Kristjanson; Mike Harlos Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Louise Bordeleau; John Paul Szalai; Marguerite Ennis; Molyn Leszcz; Michael Speca; Rami Sela; Richard Doll; Harvey M Chochinov; Margaret Navarro; Andrew Arnold; Kathleen I Pritchard; Andrea Bezjak; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Carol A Sawka; Pamela J Goodwin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lori P Montross-Thomas; Scott A Irwin; Emily A Meier; Jarred V Gallegos; Shahrokh Golshan; Eric Roeland; Helen McNeal; Diane Munson; Laura Rodseth Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Marina Martínez; María Arantzamendi; Alazne Belar; José Miguel Carrasco; Ana Carvajal; María Rullán; Carlos Centeno Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 4.762