Literature DB >> 34338978

Patient Preferences for Discussing Life Expectancy: a Systematic Review.

Emma Bjørk1, Wade Thompson2,3,4, Jesper Ryg4,5,6,7, Ove Gaardboe8, Trine Lembrecht Jørgensen7,9,10, Carina Lundby11,2,3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Discussing life expectancy helps inform decisions related to preventive medication, screening, and personal care planning. Our aim was to systematically review the literature on patient preferences for discussing life expectancy and to identify predictors for these preferences.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and gray literature from inception until 17 February 2021. Two authors screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data and one author assessed quality. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients willing to discuss life expectancy. We reported descriptive statistics, performed a narrative synthesis, and explored sub-groups of patients according to patient characteristics.
RESULTS: A total of 41 studies with an accumulated population of 27,570 participants were included, comprising quantitative survey/questionnaire studies (n=27) and qualitative interview studies (n=14). Willingness to discuss life expectancy ranged from 19 to 100% (median 61%, interquartile range (IQR) 50-73) across studies, with the majority (77%) reporting more than half of subjects willing to discuss. There was considerable heterogeneity in willingness to discuss life expectancy, even between studies from patients with similar ages, diseases, and cultural profiles. The highest variability in willingness to discuss was found among patients with cancer (range 19-100%, median 61%, IQR 51-81) and patients aged 50-64 years (range 19-97%, median 61%, IQR 45-87). This made it impossible to determine predictors for willingness to discuss life expectancy. DISCUSSION: Most patients are willing to discuss life expectancy; however, a substantial proportion is not. Heterogeneity and variability in preferences make it challenging to identify clear predictors of willingness to discuss. Variability in preferences may to some extent be influenced by age, disease, and cultural differences. These findings highlight the individual and complex nature in which patients approach this topic and stress the importance of clinicians considering eliciting patient's individual preferences when initiating discussions about life expectancy.
© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communication; life expectancy; patient preferences

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34338978      PMCID: PMC8481511          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-06973-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   6.473


  64 in total

Review 1.  A Singular Hope: How the Discussion Around Cancer Surgery Sometimes Fails.

Authors:  Megan Winner; Ana Wilson; Sean Ronnekleiv-Kelly; Thomas J Smith; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Older Adults' Preferences for Discussing Long-Term Life Expectancy: Results From a National Survey.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Ellen M Janssen; Cynthia Boyd; John F P Bridges; Antonio C Wolff; Qian-Li Xue; Craig E Pollack
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  "Knowing is better": preferences of diverse older adults for discussing prognosis.

Authors:  Cyrus Ahalt; Louise C Walter; Lindsey Yourman; Catherine Eng; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Alexander K Smith
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Public perception of cancer care in Poland and Austria.

Authors:  Mariusz Jȩdrzejewski; Christiane Thallinger; Magda Mrozik; Gabriela Kornek; Christoph Zielinski; Jacek Jassem
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2014-12-17

5.  Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making.

Authors:  L C Walter; K E Covinsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-06-06       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Hearing the bad news of a cancer diagnosis: the Australian melanoma patient's perspective.

Authors:  P E Schofield; L J Beeney; J F Thompson; P N Butow; M H Tattersall; S M Dunn
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  Primary Care Practitioners' Views on Incorporating Long-term Prognosis in the Care of Older Adults.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Theron L Bowman; Danelle Cayea; Craig Evan Pollack; Scott Feeser; Cynthia Boyd
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  Patients' preference to hear cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Mohammad Arbabi; Ava Rozdar; Mohammad Taher; Maryam Shirzad; Mohsen Arjmand; Sahar Ansari; Mohammad Reza Mohammadi
Journal:  Iran J Psychiatry       Date:  2014-03

9.  Agreement between patients' and radiation oncologists' cancer diagnosis and prognosis perceptions: A cross sectional study in Japan.

Authors:  Lisa Jane Mackenzie; Mariko Leanne Carey; Eiji Suzuki; Robert William Sanson-Fisher; Hiromi Asada; Masakazu Ogura; Catherine D'Este; Michio Yoshimura; Masakazu Toi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21
View more
  3 in total

1.  Prospective Comparison of Medical Oncologists and a Machine Learning Model to Predict 3-Month Mortality in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

Authors:  Finly J Zachariah; Lorenzo A Rossi; Laura M Roberts; Linda D Bosserman
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-05-02

2.  Strategies for discussing long-term prognosis when deciding on cancer screening for adults over age 75.

Authors:  Shivani K Jindal; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Alicia R Jacobson; Adlin Pinheiro; Alexander K Smith; Mary Beth Hamel; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 7.538

3.  Preferences for Discussing Life Expectancy: a Cross-sectional Survey Among Geriatric Outpatients in Denmark.

Authors:  Emma Bjørk; Carina Lundby; Jesper Ryg; Wade Thompson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 6.473

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.