Login S George1, Paul K Maciejewski2, Andrew S Epstein3, Megan Shen2, Holly G Prigerson4. 1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 2. Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 3. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 4. Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. Electronic address: hgp2001@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Clinicians often worry that patients' recognition of the terminal nature of their illness may impair psychological well-being. OBJECTIVES: To determine if such recognition was associated with decrements to psychological well-being that persisted over time. METHODS: About 87 patients with advanced cancer, with an oncologist-expected life expectancy of less than six months, were assessed before and after an oncology visit to discuss cancer restaging scan results and again at follow-up (median time between assessments, approximately six weeks). Prognostic understanding (PU) was assessed at previsit and postvisit, and a change score was computed. Psychological well-being was assessed at pre, post, and follow-up, and two change scores were computed (post minus pre; follow-up minus post). RESULTS: Changes toward more accurate PU was associated with a corresponding initial decline in psychological well-being (r = -0.33; P < 0.01) but thereafter was associated with subsequent improvements (r = 0.40; P < 0.001). This pattern remained controlling for potential confounds. Patients showed different patterns of psychological well-being change (F = 3.07, P = 0.05; F = 6.54, P < 0.01): among patients with improved PU accuracy, well-being initially decreased but subsequently recovered; by contrast, among patients with stable PU accuracy, well-being remained relatively unchanged, and among patients with decrements in PU accuracy, well-being initially improved but subsequently declined. CONCLUSION: Improved PU may be associated with initial decrements in psychological well-being, followed by patients rebounding to baseline levels. Concerns about lasting psychological harm may not need to be a deterrent to having prognostic discussions with patients.
CONTEXT: Clinicians often worry that patients' recognition of the terminal nature of their illness may impair psychological well-being. OBJECTIVES: To determine if such recognition was associated with decrements to psychological well-being that persisted over time. METHODS: About 87 patients with advanced cancer, with an oncologist-expected life expectancy of less than six months, were assessed before and after an oncology visit to discuss cancer restaging scan results and again at follow-up (median time between assessments, approximately six weeks). Prognostic understanding (PU) was assessed at previsit and postvisit, and a change score was computed. Psychological well-being was assessed at pre, post, and follow-up, and two change scores were computed (post minus pre; follow-up minus post). RESULTS: Changes toward more accurate PU was associated with a corresponding initial decline in psychological well-being (r = -0.33; P < 0.01) but thereafter was associated with subsequent improvements (r = 0.40; P < 0.001). This pattern remained controlling for potential confounds. Patients showed different patterns of psychological well-being change (F = 3.07, P = 0.05; F = 6.54, P < 0.01): among patients with improved PU accuracy, well-being initially decreased but subsequently recovered; by contrast, among patients with stable PU accuracy, well-being remained relatively unchanged, and among patients with decrements in PU accuracy, well-being initially improved but subsequently declined. CONCLUSION: Improved PU may be associated with initial decrements in psychological well-being, followed by patients rebounding to baseline levels. Concerns about lasting psychological harm may not need to be a deterrent to having prognostic discussions with patients.
Authors: Areej El-Jawahri; Lara Traeger; Elyse R Park; Joseph A Greer; William F Pirl; Inga T Lennes; Vicki A Jackson; Emily R Gallagher; Jennifer S Temel Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ryan D Nipp; Areej El-Jawahri; Joel N Fishbein; Justin Eusebio; Jamie M Stagl; Emily R Gallagher; Elyse R Park; Vicki A Jackson; William F Pirl; Joseph A Greer; Jennifer S Temel Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Juliet Jacobsen; Keri Brenner; Joseph A Greer; Michelle Jacobo; Leah Rosenberg; Ryan D Nipp; Vicki A Jackson Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Anthony L Back; Dee W Ford; Lois Downey; Sarah E Shannon; Ardith Z Doorenbos; Erin K Kross; Lynn F Reinke; Laura C Feemster; Barbara Edlund; Richard W Arnold; Kim O'Connor; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lauren E Sigler; Andrew D Althouse; Teresa H Thomas; Robert M Arnold; Douglas White; Thomas J Smith; Edward Chu; Margaret Rosenzweig; Kenneth J Smith; Yael Schenker Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-11-12
Authors: Stephen L Brown; Peter L Fisher; Andrew Morgan; Cari Davies; Yasmin Olabi; Laura Hope-Stone; Heinrich Heimann; Rumana Hussain; Mary Gemma Cherry Journal: Health Expect Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Paul K J Han; Elizabeth Scharnetzki; Eric Anderson; John DiPalazzo; Tania D Strout; Caitlin Gutheil; F Lee Lucas; Emily Edelman; Jens Rueter Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.612