Stephanie Johnson1, Phyllis Butow1, Ian Kerridge2, Martin Tattersall1. 1. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology and Department of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine (Velim), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer may benefit from end of life (EOL) planning, but there is evidence that their willingness and desire to engage in advance care planning (ACP) varies. The reasons for this remain poorly understood. Previous reviews on ACP most commonly report outcome measures related to medical interventions and type of care. Synthesis of the literature, which aims to illuminate the salient characteristics of ACP and investigates the psychological and social features of preparation for the EOL, is required. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies on perceptions or experiences regarding ACP of adults with cancer, family, friends, or professionals caring for this group. Databases were searched from earliest records to 19 November 2014. A thematic analysis of the literature generated conceptual themes. RESULTS: Of the 2483 studies identified, 40 were eligible for inclusion. Studies addressed the relational nature of ACP, fear surrounding ACP, the conceptual complexity of autonomy, and the influence of institutional culture and previous healthcare experiences on ACP. CONCLUSIONS: The complex social and emotional environments within which EOL planning is initiated and actioned are not sufficiently embedded within standardized ACP. The notion that ACP is concerned principally with the 'right' to self-determination through control over treatment choices at the EOL may misrepresent the way that ACP actually occurs in cancer care and ultimately conflict with the deeper concerns and needs of patients, who experience ACP as relational, emotional, and social.
BACKGROUND:Patients with advanced cancer may benefit from end of life (EOL) planning, but there is evidence that their willingness and desire to engage in advance care planning (ACP) varies. The reasons for this remain poorly understood. Previous reviews on ACP most commonly report outcome measures related to medical interventions and type of care. Synthesis of the literature, which aims to illuminate the salient characteristics of ACP and investigates the psychological and social features of preparation for the EOL, is required. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies on perceptions or experiences regarding ACP of adults with cancer, family, friends, or professionals caring for this group. Databases were searched from earliest records to 19 November 2014. A thematic analysis of the literature generated conceptual themes. RESULTS: Of the 2483 studies identified, 40 were eligible for inclusion. Studies addressed the relational nature of ACP, fear surrounding ACP, the conceptual complexity of autonomy, and the influence of institutional culture and previous healthcare experiences on ACP. CONCLUSIONS: The complex social and emotional environments within which EOL planning is initiated and actioned are not sufficiently embedded within standardized ACP. The notion that ACP is concerned principally with the 'right' to self-determination through control over treatment choices at the EOL may misrepresent the way that ACP actually occurs in cancer care and ultimately conflict with the deeper concerns and needs of patients, who experience ACP as relational, emotional, and social.
Authors: Betty R Ferrell; Carly L Paterson; Mark T Hughes; Vincent Chung; Marianna Koczywas; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Judith M Resick; Robert M Arnold; Rebecca L Sudore; David Farrell; Shane Belin; Andrew D Althouse; Betty Ferrell; Bernard J Hammes; Edward Chu; Douglas B White; Kimberly J Rak; Yael Schenker Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Mariken E Stegmann; Daan Brandenbarg; An Kl Reyners; Wouter H van Geffen; T Jeroen N Hiltermann; Annette J Berendsen Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 5.386
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