Rashmi K Sharma1, Holly G Prigerson2, Frank J Penedo3, Paul K Maciejewski2. 1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Center for Research on End-of-Life Care, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 3. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient gender plays a significant role in patient-physician communication, patients' understanding of illness, and the aggressiveness of end-of-life (EoL) care. However, little is known about the extent to which gender differences in the effects of EoL discussions on EoL care contribute to gender differences in EoL care. The current study was aimed at determining whether gender differences exist in the receipt of intensive care unit (ICU) care near death and in the association between EoL discussions and the receipt of EoL ICU care. METHODS: This was a multisite, prospective cohort study of patients (n = 353) with metastatic cancers who were identified as terminally ill at study enrollment and were interviewed at a median of 4.1 months before their deaths. Postmortem chart reviews and caregiver interviews documented ICU stays in the last week of life. RESULTS: Patients who received ICU care at the EoL were more likely to be male than those who did not (73% vs 52%, P = .02). After adjustments for potential confounders, male patients reporting an EoL discussion were less likely to have an ICU stay in the last week of life than male patients with no EoL discussion (adjusted odds ratio, 0.26, 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.91; P = .04). There was no association between EoL discussions and ICU stays near death among female patients. CONCLUSIONS: Men with advanced cancers are more likely than women to receive aggressive, nonbeneficial ICU care near death. Gender differences in the effects of EoL discussions on EoL care likely contribute to and may even explain gender differences in the receipt of ICU care in the last week of life.
BACKGROUND:Patient gender plays a significant role in patient-physician communication, patients' understanding of illness, and the aggressiveness of end-of-life (EoL) care. However, little is known about the extent to which gender differences in the effects of EoL discussions on EoL care contribute to gender differences in EoL care. The current study was aimed at determining whether gender differences exist in the receipt of intensive care unit (ICU) care near death and in the association between EoL discussions and the receipt of EoL ICU care. METHODS: This was a multisite, prospective cohort study of patients (n = 353) with metastatic cancers who were identified as terminally ill at study enrollment and were interviewed at a median of 4.1 months before their deaths. Postmortem chart reviews and caregiver interviews documented ICU stays in the last week of life. RESULTS:Patients who received ICU care at the EoL were more likely to be male than those who did not (73% vs 52%, P = .02). After adjustments for potential confounders, male patients reporting an EoL discussion were less likely to have an ICU stay in the last week of life than male patients with no EoL discussion (adjusted odds ratio, 0.26, 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.91; P = .04). There was no association between EoL discussions and ICU stays near death among female patients. CONCLUSIONS:Men with advanced cancers are more likely than women to receive aggressive, nonbeneficial ICU care near death. Gender differences in the effects of EoL discussions on EoL care likely contribute to and may even explain gender differences in the receipt of ICU care in the last week of life.
Authors: Lincy S Lal; Lesley-Ann N Miller; Rebecca Arbuckle; Frank Hung; Chun Feng; Andrea Adamus; Michael J Fisch Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2009 Nov-Dec
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: J C Weeks; E F Cook; S J O'Day; L M Peterson; N Wenger; D Reding; F E Harrell; P Kussin; N V Dawson; A F Connors; J Lynn; R S Phillips Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-06-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elie K Mehanna; Paul J Catalano; Daniel N Cagney; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Brian M Alexander; James A Tulsky; Ayal A Aizer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Siran M Koroukian; Nicholas K Schiltz; David F Warner; Charles W Given; Mark Schluchter; Cynthia Owusu; Nathan A Berger Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Teresa L Hagan; Susan M Cohen; Margaret Q Rosenzweig; Kristin Zorn; Clement A Stone; Heidi S Donovan Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 3.187
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: Fahad Saeed; Michael Hoerger; Sally A Norton; Elizabeth Guancial; Ronald M Epstein; Paul R Duberstein Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.612
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