Literature DB >> 30782978

Adding a Wider Range and "Hope for the Best, and Prepare for the Worst" Statement: Preferences of Patients with Cancer for Prognostic Communication.

Masanori Mori1,2, Maiko Fujimori2,3, Hiroto Ishiki4, Tomohiro Nishi5, Jun Hamano6, Hiroyuki Otani7, Yu Uneno8,9, Akira Oba10, Tatsuya Morita11, Yosuke Uchitomi3,12.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Although various phrases to communicate prognoses based on a certain concept have been proposed, no study has systematically investigated preferences of patients with cancer for actual phrases. We investigated whether phrases with a wider range and additional "hope for the best, and prepare for the worst" (hope/prepare) statement would be more preferable and explored variables associated with patients' preferences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional survey, 412 outpatients with cancer self-assessed their preferences for 13 phrases conveying prognostic information (e.g., phrases with or without median, typical range, and/or best/worst cases, and those with or without a hope/prepare statement) on a 6-point scale (1 = not at all preferable; 6 = very preferable). We evaluated demographic data and the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations and conducted multivariate regression analysis.
RESULTS: Regarding phrases with various ranges, the one including the median, typical range, and best/worst cases was more preferable (mean ± SD, 3.8 ± 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6-3.9) than the one with the median and typical range (3.4 ± 1.2; 3.3-3.6) or the one with only the median (3.2 ± 1.3; 3.1-3.3). Concerning the hope/prepare statement, the phrase including the median, typical range, uncertainty, and hope/prepare statement was more preferable (3.8 ± 1.4; 3.7-3.9) than the one without the statement (3.5 ± 1.2; 3.4-3.6). In multivariate analyses, task-oriented coping was significantly correlated with preferences for phrases with explicit information.
CONCLUSION: Overall, phrases with a wider range and the hope/prepare statement were preferable to those without them. When patients with cancer ask about prognoses, especially those with task-oriented coping, clinicians may provide explicit information with a wider range and the hope/prepare statement. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Discussing prognoses with patients with advanced cancer is among the most important conversations for clinicians. In this cross-sectional survey to systematically investigate preferences of 412 patients with cancer for phrases conveying prognostic information, phrases with the median, typical range, and best/worst cases and those with the "hope for the best and prepare for the worst" (hope/prepare) statement were the most preferred. When patients with cancer ask about prognoses, clinicians may provide explicit information with a wider range and include the hope/prepare statement. © AlphaMed Press 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Explicitness; Preferences; Prognosis; Range

Year:  2019        PMID: 30782978      PMCID: PMC6738294          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0643

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  39 in total

1.  Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

Authors:  Anthony L Back; Robert M Arnold; Timothy E Quill
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Cultural differences in responses to a Likert scale.

Authors:  Jerry W Lee; Patricia S Jones; Yoshimitsu Mineyama; Xinwei Esther Zhang
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.228

3.  Communication about the ending of anticancer treatment and transition to palliative care.

Authors:  T Morita; T Akechi; M Ikenaga; Y Kizawa; H Kohara; T Mukaiyama; T Nakaho; N Nakashima; Y Shima; T Matsubara; M Fujimori; Y Uchitomi
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 32.976

4.  Discussing life expectancy with terminally ill cancer patients and their carers: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Josephine M Clayton; Phyllis N Butow; Robert M Arnold; Martin H N Tattersall
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2005-03-11       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 5.  Communicating prognosis in cancer care: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  R G Hagerty; P N Butow; P M Ellis; S Dimitry; M H N Tattersall
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2005-06-06       Impact factor: 32.976

6.  Cancer patients' desires for communication of prognosis information.

Authors:  Stan A Kaplowitz; Shelly Campo; Wai Tat Chiu
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2002

7.  Discussing end-of-life issues with terminally ill cancer patients and their carers: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Josephine M Clayton; Phyllis N Butow; Robert M Arnold; Martin H N Tattersall
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2005-01-12       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Cancer patient preferences for communication of prognosis in the metastatic setting.

Authors:  Rebecca G Hagerty; Phyllis N Butow; Peter A Ellis; Elizabeth A Lobb; Susan Pendlebury; Natasha Leighl; David Goldstein; Sing Kai Lo; Martin H N Tattersall
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Monitoring and blunting in palliative and curative radiotherapy consultations.

Authors:  Liesbeth M Timmermans; Florence J van Zuuren; Richard W M van der Maazen; Jan Willem H Leer; Floris W Kraaimaat
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.894

10.  Disarming the guarded prognosis: predicting survival in newly referred patients with incurable cancer.

Authors:  M R Stockler; M H N Tattersall; M J Boyer; S J Clarke; P J Beale; R J Simes
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-01-30       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Discussing Prognosis with Empathy to Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Sophie Lelorain
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2021-03-14       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Conditional Survival After Resection for Pancreatic Cancer: A Population-Based Study and Prediction Model.

Authors:  Anouk E J Latenstein; Stijn van Roessel; Lydia G M van der Geest; Bert A Bonsing; Cornelis H C Dejong; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Marjolein Y V Homs; Joost M Klaase; Valery Lemmens; I Quintus Molenaar; Ewout W Steyerberg; Martijn W J Stommel; Olivier R Busch; Casper H J van Eijck; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Johanna W Wilmink; Marc G Besselink
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Construction of a prognostic immune signature for lower grade glioma that can be recognized by MRI radiomics features to predict survival in LGG patients.

Authors:  Zi-Zhuo Li; Peng-Fei Liu; Ting-Ting An; Hai-Chao Yang; Wei Zhang; Jia-Xu Wang
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2021-03-21       Impact factor: 4.243

4.  Characteristics of patients with advanced cancer preferring not to know prognosis: a multicenter survey study.

Authors:  Naomi C A van der Velden; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Sjaak A Burgers; Lizza E L Hendriks; Filip Y F L de Vos; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Joost Jansen; Jan-Maarten W van Haarst; Joyce Dits; Ellen Ma Smets; Inge Henselmans
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  An integrative microenvironment approach for laryngeal carcinoma: the role of immune/methylation/autophagy signatures on disease clinical prognosis and single-cell genotypes.

Authors:  Xueran Kang; Yisheng Chen; Bin Yi; Xiaojun Yan; Chenyan Jiang; Bin Chen; Lixing Lu; Yuxing Sun; Runjie Shi
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 4.207

6.  Communication about Prognosis during Patient-Initiated Second Opinion Consultations in Advanced Cancer Care: An Observational Qualitative Analysis.

Authors:  N C A van der Velden; M B A van der Kleij; V Lehmann; E M A Smets; J M L Stouthard; I Henselmans; M A Hillen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 3.390

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.