BACKGROUND: The role of end-of-life (EOL) care preferences and conversations in receipt of care near death for Latinos is unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study examines rates and predictors of intensive EOL and hospice care among Latino and white advanced cancer patients. DESIGN: Two-hundred-and-ninety-two self-reported Latino (n=58) and white (n=234) Stage IV cancer patients participated in a U.S. multisite, prospective, cohort study from September 2002 to August 2008. The Latino and white, non-Hispanic participants were interviewed and followed until death, a median of 118.5 days from baseline. MEASUREMENTS: Patient-reported, baseline predictors of EOL care included EOL care preference; terminal illness acknowledgement; EOL discussion; completion of a DNR order; and religious coping. Caregiver postmortem interviews provided information regarding EOL care received. Intensive EOL care was defined as resuscitation and/or ventilation followed by death in an intensive care unit. Hospice was either in- or outpatient. RESULTS: Latino and white patients received intensive EOL and hospice care at similar rates (5.2% and 3.4% for intensive care, p=0.88; 70.7% versus 73.4% for hospice, p=0.33). No white or Latino patient who reported a DNR order or EOL discussion at baseline received intensive EOL care. Religious coping and a preference for life-extending care predicted intensive EOL care for white patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.69 [p=0.02] and aOR 6.63 [p=0.01], respectively), but not for Latinos. No predictors were associated with Latino hospice care. CONCLUSIONS: EOL discussions and DNR orders may prevent intensive EOL care among Latino cancer patients. Efforts should continue to engage Latino patients and caregivers in these activities.
BACKGROUND: The role of end-of-life (EOL) care preferences and conversations in receipt of care near death for Latinos is unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study examines rates and predictors of intensive EOL and hospice care among Latino and white advanced cancerpatients. DESIGN: Two-hundred-and-ninety-two self-reported Latino (n=58) and white (n=234) Stage IV cancerpatients participated in a U.S. multisite, prospective, cohort study from September 2002 to August 2008. The Latino and white, non-Hispanic participants were interviewed and followed until death, a median of 118.5 days from baseline. MEASUREMENTS: Patient-reported, baseline predictors of EOL care included EOL care preference; terminal illness acknowledgement; EOL discussion; completion of a DNR order; and religious coping. Caregiver postmortem interviews provided information regarding EOL care received. Intensive EOL care was defined as resuscitation and/or ventilation followed by death in an intensive care unit. Hospice was either in- or outpatient. RESULTS: Latino and white patients received intensive EOL and hospice care at similar rates (5.2% and 3.4% for intensive care, p=0.88; 70.7% versus 73.4% for hospice, p=0.33). No white or Latino patient who reported a DNR order or EOL discussion at baseline received intensive EOL care. Religious coping and a preference for life-extending care predicted intensive EOL care for white patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.69 [p=0.02] and aOR 6.63 [p=0.01], respectively), but not for Latinos. No predictors were associated with Latino hospice care. CONCLUSIONS: EOL discussions and DNR orders may prevent intensive EOL care among Latino cancerpatients. Efforts should continue to engage Latino patients and caregivers in these activities.
Authors: Kimberly S Johnson; Maragatha Kuchibhatala; Richard J Sloane; David Tanis; Anthony N Galanos; James A Tulsky Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Alexander K Smith; Ellen P McCarthy; Elizabeth Paulk; Tracy A Balboni; Paul K Maciejewski; Susan D Block; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; Craig C Earle; John E Orav; Phyllis Brawarsky; Bridget A Neville; Dolores Acevedo-Garcia; David R Williams Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Paul R Duberstein; Michael Chen; Benjamin P Chapman; Michael Hoerger; Fahad Saeed; Elizabeth Guancial; Jennifer W Mack Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-07-10
Authors: Nwamaka D Eneanya; Julia B Wenger; Katherine Waite; Stanley Crittenden; Derya B Hazar; Angelo Volandes; Jennifer S Temel; Ravi Thadhani; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Kelly M Trevino; Holly G Prigerson; Megan Johnson Shen; Daniel J Tancredi; Guibo Xing; Michael Hoerger; Ronald M Epstein; Paul R Duberstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Taofeek K Owonikoko; Adeniyi K Busari; Sungjin Kim; Zhengjia Chen; Adebowale Akintayo; Colleen Lewis; Bradley C Carthon; Olatunji B Alese; Bassel F El-Rayes; Suresh S Ramalingam; R Donald Harvey Journal: Oncology Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Megan Johnson Shen; Holly G Prigerson; Elizabeth Paulk; Kelly M Trevino; Frank J Penedo; Ana I Tergas; Andrew S Epstein; Alfred I Neugut; Paul K Maciejewski Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Emily E Johnston; Lori Muffly; Elysia Alvarez; Olga Saynina; Lee M Sanders; Smita Bhatia; Lisa J Chamberlain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 44.544