Eliza M Park1, Devon K Check2, Justin M Yopp1, Allison M Deal3, Teresa P Edwards4, Donald L Rosenstein1,5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. H. W. Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Effective physician communication about prognosis is a critical aspect of quality care for families affected by terminal illness. This is particularly important for spousal caregivers of terminally ill parents of dependent children, who may have unique needs for communication about anticipated death. The objective of this study was to explore end-of-life prognostic communication experiences reported by bereaved fathers whose wives died from cancer. METHODS: From October 2012 to November 2013 we surveyed widowed fathers whose wives died from cancer through an open-access educational website. The survey included the following open-ended questions regarding prognostic communication: 'What is the most important thing you would like us to know about whether/how your wife's doctors communicated with you about her anticipated death? What do you wish had been different, if anything?' We performed traditional content analysis of responses. Two researchers coded and categorized the data. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four men responded to the survey questions on prognostic communication. Major themes addressed by respondents were the importance of clear and honest communication and physician bedside manner. They also identified unmet information needs, including wanting to know prognosis sooner. Relevant sub-themes included death coming as a surprise, avoidance, and caregiver regret. CONCLUSIONS: Surviving spouses due to cancer can provide important insights for health care providers about optimum prognostic communication at the end of life. Increased physician attention to the communication preferences of both patients and their partners may improve bereavement outcomes for family members.
OBJECTIVE: Effective physician communication about prognosis is a critical aspect of quality care for families affected by terminal illness. This is particularly important for spousal caregivers of terminally ill parents of dependent children, who may have unique needs for communication about anticipated death. The objective of this study was to explore end-of-life prognostic communication experiences reported by bereaved fathers whose wives died from cancer. METHODS: From October 2012 to November 2013 we surveyed widowed fathers whose wives died from cancer through an open-access educational website. The survey included the following open-ended questions regarding prognostic communication: 'What is the most important thing you would like us to know about whether/how your wife's doctors communicated with you about her anticipated death? What do you wish had been different, if anything?' We performed traditional content analysis of responses. Two researchers coded and categorized the data. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four men responded to the survey questions on prognostic communication. Major themes addressed by respondents were the importance of clear and honest communication and physician bedside manner. They also identified unmet information needs, including wanting to know prognosis sooner. Relevant sub-themes included death coming as a surprise, avoidance, and caregiver regret. CONCLUSIONS: Surviving spouses due to cancer can provide important insights for health care providers about optimum prognostic communication at the end of life. Increased physician attention to the communication preferences of both patients and their partners may improve bereavement outcomes for family members.
Authors: Breffni Hannon; Nadia Swami; Monika K Krzyzanowska; Natasha Leighl; Gary Rodin; Lisa W Le; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Janneke A J Rood; Florence J van Zuuren; Frank Stam; Tjeerd van der Ploeg; Corien Eeltink; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Peter C Huijgens Journal: Hematol Oncol Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 5.271
Authors: Sharon M Parker; Josephine M Clayton; Karen Hancock; Sharon Walder; Phyllis N Butow; Sue Carrick; David Currow; Davina Ghersi; Paul Glare; Rebecca Hagerty; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Joan M Teno; Brian R Clarridge; Virginia Casey; Lisa C Welch; Terrie Wetle; Renee Shield; Vincent Mor Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-01-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rachel A Rodenbach; Sally A Norton; Marsha N Wittink; Supriya Mohile; Holly G Prigerson; Paul R Duberstein; Ronald M Epstein Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-12-12
Authors: Eliza M Park; Allison M Deal; Justin M Yopp; Teresa Edwards; Elise M Stephenson; Claire E Hailey; Zev M Nakamura; Donald L Rosenstein Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-12-16