Search

Context: Gender and personality may individually impact end-of-life care. Men often receive more aggressive treatments than women near death, and personality - particularly openness - may be associated with increased care utilization when it diverges from traditional treatment norms. However, research has not examined the interaction of these variables in a dyadic context., Objectives: This study examined the dyadic effects of patient gender and caregiver personality on end-of-life care., Methods: Using data from the VOICE randomized clinical trial, the present sample consisted of patient-caregiver dyads receiving outpatient care for advanced cancer in Sacramento and Western New York. Analyses assessed whether caregiver personality was associated with gender-based differences in patient chemotherapy or emergency department/inpatient visits in the 30 days before death. Logistic regression examined the interaction between caregivers' Big Five personality dimensions and patient gender while accounting for patient and caregiver demographic and health characteristics., Results: Of a total of 134 patient-caregiver dyads, 19.4% (n = 26) of patients received chemotherapy and 47.8% (n = 64) had an emergency department/inpatient visit in the 30 days before death. Results demonstrated a significant interaction between caregiver openness and patient gender on receipt of chemotherapy (odds ratio = 0.07, p = 0.006). When caregivers were less open, men were more likely to receive chemotherapy near death, whereas when caregivers were more open, women were more likely to receive chemotherapy near death., Conclusion: Results suggest caregiver personality characteristics, particularly openness, might disrupt gender-based treatment norms at end-of-life. Findings demonstrate that patient and caregiver factors can interact to explain patient healthcare utilization., Competing Interests: Disclosures and Acknowledgments The authors have declared no conflicts of interest. This research was supported by funds from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U54GM104940). Laura M. Perry was supported by the NIH/NCI training grant T32CA193193., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Prior interventions have repeatedly failed to decrease the prescription and receipt of treatments and procedures that confer more harm than benefit at the End-of-Life (EoL); new approaches to intervention are needed. Ideally, future interventions would be informed by a social-ecological conceptual model that explains EoL healthcare utilization patterns, but current models ignore two facts: (1) healthcare is an inherently social activity, involving clinical teams and patients' social networks, and (2) emotions influence social activity. To address these omissions, we scaffolded Terror Management Theory and Socioemotional Selectivity Theory to create the Transtheoretical Model of Irrational Biomedical Exuberance (TRIBE). Based on Terror Management Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of patient death motivates healthcare teams to conform to a biomedical norm of care, even when clinicians believe that biomedical interventions will likely be unhelpful. Based on Socioemotional Selectivity Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of dwindling time motivates families to prioritize emotional goals, and leads patients to consent to disease-directed treatments they know will likely be unhelpful, as moral emotions motivate deference to the perceived emotional needs of their loved ones. TRIBE is unique among models of healthcare utilization in its acknowledgement that moral emotions and processes (e.g., shame, compassion, regret-avoidance) influence healthcare delivery, patients' interactions with family members, and patients' outcomes. TRIBE is especially relevant to potentially harmful EoL care in the United States, and it also offers insights into the epidemics of overtreatment in healthcare settings worldwide. By outlining the role of socioemotional processes in the care of persons with serious conditions, TRIBE underscores the critical need for psychological innovation in interventions, health policy and research on healthcare utilization., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The quality of the relationship between oncologists and cancer patients has been associated with caregiver bereavement outcomes, but no studies have examined whether the perceived quality of the relationship between cancer caregivers and oncologists is associated with caregiver experiences of end-of-life care or psychological adjustment after the patient's death., Methods: We conducted secondary analyses of data collected in the Values and Options in Cancer Care (VOICE) study, a randomized controlled trial of an intervention that improved communication between oncologists and patients/caregivers (n = 204 dyads). At study entry, we assessed caregivers' experiences with the oncologist using four items from the Human Connection Scale. Following patients' deaths, we assessed bereaved caregivers' experiences with end-of-life cancer care (Quality of Death; Peace, Equanimity, and Acceptance in the Cancer Experience [PEACE]; Caregiver Evaluation of the Quality of End-of-Life Care [CEQUEL]; and modified Decision Regret scales) and psychological adjustment (Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 and Purpose in Life scales). We conducted multivariable regressions examining prospective associations between caregiver experiences with the oncologist at study entry and outcome variables., Results: Data were collected from 105 caregivers of patients who died during the course of the study. Positive experience with the oncologist was prospectively associated with better experiences of end-of-life care, as reflected in better quality of death (estimate = 0.33, SE = 0.14, p = 0.02), PEACE (estimate = 0.11, SE = 0.05, p = 0.04), and decisional regret (estimate = - 0.16, SE = 0.06, p = 0.01). Caregivers' experience with the oncologist was not significantly associated with indicators of psychological adjustment., Conclusion: Caregivers' early experiences with oncologists may affect their experiences of the patient's end-of-life care.

Context: Previous studies from the U.S. and Canada report deficiencies in informed decision making and a need to improve end-of-life (EoL) care in patients undergoing dialysis. However, there is a paucity of literature on these issues in Pakistani dialysis patients, who differ from Western patients in culture, religion, and available health care services., Objectives: To study informed dialysis decision-making and EoL attitudes and beliefs in Pakistani patients receiving dialysis., Methods: We used convenience sampling to collect 522 surveys (90% response rate) from patients in seven different dialysis units in Pakistan. We used an existing dialysis survey tool, translated into Urdu, and backtranslated to English. A facilitator distributed the survey, explained questions, and orally administered it to patients unable to read., Results: Less than one-fourth of the respondents (23%) felt informed about their medical condition, and 45% were hopeful that their condition would improve in the future. More than half (54%) wished to know their prognosis, and 80% reported having no prognostic discussion. Almost 63% deemed EoL planning important, but only 5% recalled discussing EoL decisions with a doctor during the last 12 months. Nearly 62% of the patients regretted their decision to start dialysis. Patients' self-reported knowledge of hospice (5%) and palliative care (7.9%) services was very limited, yet 46% preferred a treatment plan focused on comfort and symptom management rather than life extension., Conclusion: Pakistani patients reported a need for better informed dialysis decision making and EoL care and better access to palliative care services. These findings underscore the need for palliative care training of Pakistani physicians and in other developing countries to help address communication and EoL needs of their dialysis patients., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: There has been surprisingly little attention to conceptual and methodological issues that influence the measurement of discretionary utilization at the end of life (DIAL), an indicator of quality care., Objective: The objectives of this study were to examine how DIALs have been operationally defined and identify areas where evidence is biased or inadequate to inform practice., Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the English language literature published from 1/1/04 to 6/30/17. Articles were eligible if they reported data on ≥2 DIALs within 100 days of the deaths of adults aged ≥18 years. We explored the influence of research design on how researchers measure DIALs and whether they examine demographic correlates of DIALs. Other potential biases and influences were explored., Results: We extracted data from 254 articles published in 79 journals covering research conducted in 29 countries, mostly focused on cancer care (69.1%). More than 100 DIALs have been examined. Relatively crude, simple variables (e.g., intensive care unit admissions [56.9% of studies], chemotherapy [50.8%], palliative care [40.0%]) have been studied more frequently than complex variables (e.g., burdensome transitions; 7.3%). We found considerable variation in the assessment of DIALs, illustrating the role of research design, professional norms and disciplinary habit. Variables are typically chosen with little input from the public (including patients or caregivers) and clinicians. Fewer than half of the studies examined age (44.6%), gender (37.3%), race (26.5%), or socioeconomic (18.5%) correlates of DIALs., Conclusion: Unwarranted variation in DIAL assessments raises difficult questions concerning how DIALs are defined, by whom, and why. We recommend several strategies for improving DIAL assessments. Improved metrics could be used by the public, patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, hospitals, health systems, payers, governments, and others to evaluate and improve end-of-life care., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Care teams are increasingly expected to attend to the needs of patient's personal caregivers (e.g., family members). Improving communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers might enhance caregivers' experiences of end-of-life (EoL) cancer care and bereavement outcomes. Objective: To explore the effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care intervention on caregivers' experiences of EoL care and bereavement outcomes. Design : We developed a brief behavioral intervention to improve communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers. The intervention was designed to help patients/caregivers ask questions, express concerns, and help oncologists respond effectively. We randomly assigned oncologists (and their patients/caregivers) to the intervention or usual care. Setting/Subjects: Medical oncologists in NY and CA; patients/personal caregivers with advanced cancer. Measurements: Two months after the patient's death, caregivers completed three instruments assessing their experiences of EoL care. Seven months after the patient's death, caregivers completed the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 (PG-13; primary prespecified outcome), the Purpose-in-Life scale, and scales assessing mental health function, depression, and anxiety. Results : The intervention did not significantly improve caregivers' scores on the PG-13 ( p  = 0.21), mental health function, depression, or anxiety, but it did improve purpose-in-life scores ( p  = 0.018). Cohen's d (95% confidence interval) for all three experiences of EoL care outcomes were promising, ranging from 0.22 (-0.19 to 0.63) to 0.39 (-0.07 to 0.86) although none was statistically significant. Conclusion: Preliminary findings show promise that scalable interventions in cancer care settings may improve caregiver experiences with cancer care and some bereavement outcomes.

Context: Although patient and physician characteristics are thought to be predictive of discretionary interventions at the end of life (EoL), few studies have data on both parties., Objective: To test the hypothesis that patient preferences and physician attitudes are both independently associated with discretionary interventions at the EoL., Methods: We report secondary analyses of data collected prospectively from physicians (n = 38) and patients with advanced cancer (n = 265) in the Values and Options in Cancer Care study. Predictor variables were patient attitudes toward EoL care and physician-reported comfort with medical paternalism, assessed indirectly using a modified version of the Control Preference Scale. We explored whether the magnitude of the physician variable was influenced by the inclusion of particular patient treatment-preference variables (i.e., effect modification). Outcomes were a chemotherapy use score (≤14 days before death [scored 2], 15-31 days before death [scored 1], and >31 days [scored 0]) and an emergency department visit/inpatient admission score (two or more admissions in the last 31 days [scored 2], one admission [1], and 0 admissions [0]) in the last month of life., Results: Chemotherapy scores were nearly 0.25 points higher if patients expressed a preference for experimental treatments with unknown benefit at study entry (0.238 points, 95% CI = 0.047-0.429) or reported an unfavorable attitude toward palliative care (0.247 points, 95% CI = 0.047-0.450). A two-standard deviation difference in physician comfort with medical paternalism corresponded to standardized effects of 0.35 (95% CI = 0.03-0.66) for chemotherapy and 0.33 (95% CI = 0.04-0.61) for emergency department visits/inpatient admissions. There was no evidence of effect modification., Conclusion: Patient treatment preferences and physician attitudes are independently associated with higher levels of treatment intensity before death. Greater research, clinical, and policy attention to patient treatment preferences and physician comfort with medical paternalism might lead to improvements in care of patients with advanced disease., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore family caregivers' emotional experiences while caring for patients with advanced cancer and navigating distressing information, awareness of dying, and difficult decisions., Methods: Qualitative descriptive study of semi-structured interviews with 92 bereaved caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. Interviews explored caregivers' experiences as patients transitioned out of active cancer treatment and neared the end of life., Results: Included in caregivers' characterization of this transition time were three particularly emotionally charged experiences. The first occurred when caregivers felt jolted into awareness that patients were dying.They were startled to realize that patients would die sooner than expected; some expressed frustration that they had not been adequately warned. In the second, caregivers felt conflicted when involved in decisions that pitted patients' preferences against what caregivers felt patients needed, resulting in ambivalence, guilt, and grief. Thirdly, caregivers who felt they did their best for patients expressed fulfillment and gratitude., Conclusion: Caregivers of patients with advanced cancer face unique, emotionally charged experiences that can lead to distress and affect care at the end of life., Practice Implications: Awareness of these situations may help oncology teams to provide sufficient guidance and support, partner with caregivers to clarify patients' needs, and deliver higher quality care., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose To build on results of a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a combined patient-oncologist intervention to improve communication in advanced cancer, we conducted a post hoc analysis of the patient intervention component, a previsit patient coaching session that used a question prompt list (QPL). We hypothesized that intervention-group participants would bring up more QPL-related topics, particularly prognosis-related topics, during the subsequent oncologist visit. Patients and Methods This cluster RCT with 170 patients who had advanced nonhematologic cancer (and their caregivers) recruited from practices of 24 participating oncologists in western New York. Intervention-group oncologists (n = 12) received individualized communication training; up to 10 of their patients (n = 84) received a previsit individualized communication coaching session that incorporated a QPL. Control-group oncologists (n = 12) and patients (n = 86) received no interventions. Topics of interest identified by patients during the coaching session were summarized from coaching notes; one office visit after the coaching session was audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by using linear regression modeling for group differences. Results Compared with controls, more than twice as many intervention-group participants brought up QPL-related topics during their office visits (70.2% v 32.6%; P < .001). Patients in the intervention group were nearly three times more likely to ask about prognosis (16.7% v 5.8%; P =.03). Of 262 topics of interest identified during coaching, 158 (60.3%) were QPL related; 20 (12.7%) addressed prognosis. Overall, patients in the intervention group brought up 82.4% of topics of interest during the office visit. Conclusion A combined coaching and QPL intervention was effective to help patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers identify and bring up topics of concern, including prognosis, during their subsequent oncologist visits. Considering that most patients are misinformed about prognosis, more intensive steps are needed to better promote such discussions.

Background: Patients are often not given the information needed to understand their prognosis and make informed treatment choices, with many consequently experiencing less than optimal care and quality-of-life at end-of-life., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-facilitated communication support program for patients with advanced, incurable cancer to assist them in discussing prognosis and end-of-life care., Design: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial design was used., Settings: This trial was conducted at six cancer treatment centres affiliated with major hospitals in Sydney, Australia., Participants: 110 patients with advanced, incurable cancer participated., Methods: The communication support program included guided exploration of a question prompt list, communication challenges, patient values and concerns and the value of discussing end-of-life care early, with oncologists cued to endorse question-asking and question prompt list use. Patients were randomised after baseline measure completion, a regular oncology consultation was audio-recorded and a follow-up questionnaire was completed one month later. Communication, health-related quality-of-life and satisfaction measures and a manualised consultation-coding scheme were used. Descriptive, Mixed Modelling and Generalised Linear Mixed Modelling analyses were conducted using SPSS version 22., Results: Communication support program recipients gave significantly more cues for discussion of prognosis, end-of-life care, future care options and general issues not targeted by the intervention during recorded consultations, but did not ask more questions about these issues or overall. Oncologists' question prompt list and question asking endorsement was inconsistent. Communication support program recipients' self-efficacy in knowing what questions to ask their doctor significantly improved at follow-up while control arm patients' self-efficacy declined. The communication support program did not impact patients' health-related quality-of-life or the likelihood that their health information or shared decision-making preferences would be met. Satisfaction with the communication support program was high., Conclusions: Given the importance of clarifying prognostic expectations and end-of-life care wishes in the advanced cancer context, the communication support program appears to be an effective and well-received solution to encourage early information seeking related to these issues though, its long-term impact remains unclear. The manualised nature of the intervention, designed with existing clinical staff in mind, may make it suited for implementation in a clinical setting, though additional work is needed to identify why question asking was unaffected and establish its impact later in the illness trajectory., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Discussing end-of-life (EOL) care is challenging when death is not imminent, contributing to poor decision-making and EOL quality-of-life. A communication support program (CSP) targeting these issues may facilitate discussions. We aimed to qualitatively explore responses to a nurse-led CSP, incorporating a question prompt list (QPL-booklet of questions patients/caregivers can ask clinicians), promoting life expectancy and EOL-care discussions., Methods: Participants met a nurse-facilitator to explore an EOL-focussed QPL. Prognosis and advance care planning (ACP) QPL content was highlighted. Thirty-one transcribed meetings were analysed using thematic text analysis before reaching data saturation., Results: Thirty-one advanced cancer patients (life expectancy <12 months) and 11 family caregivers were recruited from six medical oncology clinics in Sydney, Australia. Intent to use the QPL related to information needs, involvement in care and readiness to discuss EOL issues. Many participants did not want life expectancy estimates, citing unreliable estimates, unknown treatment outcomes, or coping by not looking ahead. Most displayed interest in ACP, often motivated by a loved one's EOL experiences, clear treatment preferences, concerns about caregivers or recognition that ACP is valuable regardless of life expectancy. Timing emerged as a reason not to discuss EOL issues; many maintaining it was too early., Conclusion: Patients and caregivers appear ambivalent about acknowledging approaching death by discussing life expectancy but value ACP. Given heterogeneity in responses, individualised approaches are required to guide EOL discussion conduct and content. Further exploration of the role of prognostic discussion in ACP is warranted., (Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction: Timely communication about life expectancy and end-of-life care is crucial for ensuring good patient quality-of-life at the end of life and a good quality of death. This article describes the protocol for a multisite randomised controlled trial of a nurse-led communication support programme to facilitate patients' and caregivers' efforts to communicate about these issues with their healthcare team., Methods and Analysis: This NHMRC-sponsored trial is being conducted at medical oncology clinics located at/affiliated with major teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Patients with advanced, incurable cancer and life expectancy of less than 12 months will participate together with their primary informal caregiver where possible. Guided by the self-determination theory of health-behaviour change, the communication support programme pairs a purpose-designed Question Prompt List (QPL-an evidence-based list of questions patients/caregivers can ask clinicians) with nurse-led exploration of QPL content, communication challenges, patient values and concerns and the value of early discussion of end-of-life issues. Oncologists are also cued to endorse patient and caregiver question asking and use of the QPL. Behavioural and self-report data will be collected from patients/caregivers approximately quarterly for up to 2.5 years or until patient death, after which patient medical records will be examined. Analyses will examine the impact of the intervention on patients' and caregivers' participation in medical consultations, their self-efficacy in medical encounters, quality-of-life, end-of-life care receipt and quality-of-death indicators., Ethics and Dissemination: Approvals have been granted by the human ethics review committee of Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and governance officers at each participating site. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000724077., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: To explore patients' perspectives across two cultures (Australia and USA) regarding communication about prognosis and end-of-life care issues and to consider the ways in which these discussions can be optimised., Methods: Fifteen Australian and 11 US patients completed individual semi-structured qualitative interviews. A further 8 US patients participated in a focus group. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and interpreted using thematic text analysis with an inductive, data-driven approach., Results: Global themes identified included readiness for and outcomes of discussions of prognosis and end-of-life issues. Contributing to readiness were sub themes including patients' adjustment to and acceptance of their condition (together with seven factors promoting this), doctor and patient communication skills, mutual understandings and therapeutic relationship elements. Outcomes included sub themes of achievement of control and ability to move on. A model of the relationships between these factors, emergent cross cultural differences, and how factors may help to optimise these discussions are presented., Conclusion: Identified optimising factors illustrate Australian and US patients' perspectives regarding how prognosis and end-of-life issues can be discussed with minimised negative impact., Practice Implications: Recognition of factors promoting adjustment, acceptance and readiness and use of the communication skills and therapeutic relationship elements identified may assist in optimising discussions and help patients plan care, achieve more control of their situation and enjoy an optimal quality-of-life., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

BackgroundPatients with advanced, incurable cancer who understand their illness is incurable are more likely to prefer hospice care at the end of life compared with patients who believe their illness is curable. To the authors' knowledge, it is unclear whether patient-caregiver agreement regarding perceived prognosis is associated with hospice enrollment.MethodsThe current study examined the prospective relationship between patient-caregiver agreement concerning perceived prognosis and hospice enrollment in the last 30 days of life. Data were collected during a cluster randomized controlled trial examining a communication intervention for oncologists and patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. At the time of study entry, patients and caregivers (141 dyads) were categorized as endorsing a "good" prognosis if they: 1) reported a >50% chance of surviving ≥2 years; or if they 2) predicted that the patient's quality of life 3 months into the future would be ≥7 on an 11-point scale.ResultsApproximately one-fifth of dyads agreed on a poor prognosis whereas approximately one-half disagreed regarding prognosis. In approximately one-third of dyads, patients and caregivers both believed the patient's future quality of life would be good (34%) and that the patient would live for ≥2 years (30%). Patients in these dyads were less likely to enroll in hospice compared with patients in dyads who disagreed and those who agreed on a shorter life expectancy and poor future quality of life.ConclusionsDyadic understanding of patients' projected life expectancy and future quality of life appears to be predictive of care received at the end of life. Improving rates of hospice enrollment may be best achieved with dyadic interventions.

ImportancePatients with advanced cancer often report expectations for survival that differ from their oncologists' expectations. Whether patients know that their survival expectations differ from those of their oncologists remains unknown. This distinction is important because knowingly expressing differences of opinion is important for shared decision making, whereas patients not knowing that their understanding differs from that of their treating physician is a potential marker of inadequate communication.ObjectiveTo describe the prevalence, distribution, and proportion of prognostic discordance that is due to patients' knowingly vs unknowingly expressing an opinion that differs from that of their oncologist.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study conducted at academic and community oncology practices in Rochester, New York, and Sacramento, California. The sample comprises 236 patients with advanced cancer and their 38 oncologists who participated in a randomized trial of an intervention to improve clinical communication. Participants were enrolled from August 2012 to June 2014 and followed up until October 2015.Main outcomes and measuresWe ascertained discordance by comparing patient and oncologist ratings of 2-year survival probability. For discordant pairs, we determined whether patients knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists by asking the patients to report how they believed their oncologists rated their 2-year survival.ResultsAmong the 236 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.4] years; 54% female), 161 patient-oncologist survival prognosis ratings (68%; 95% CI, 62%-75%) were discordant. Discordance was substantially more common among nonwhite patients compared with white patients (95% [95% CI, 86%-100%] vs 65% [95% CI, 58%-73%], respectively; P = .03). Among 161 discordant patients, 144 (89%) did not know that their opinions differed from that of their oncologists and nearly all of them (155 of 161 [96%]) were more optimistic than their oncologists.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, patient-oncologist discordance about survival prognosis was common and patients rarely knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists.

Background: Physicians treating similar patients in similar care-delivery contexts vary in the intensity of life-extending care provided to their patients at the end-of-life. Physician psychological propensities are an important potential determinant of this variability, but the pertinent literature has yet to be synthesized. Objective: Conduct a review of qualitative studies to explicate whether and how psychological propensities could result in some physicians providing more intensive treatment than others. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in five major electronic databases—MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley)—to identify eligible studies (earliest available date to August 2021). Eligibility criteria included examination of a physician psychological factor as relating to end-of-life care intensity in advanced life-limiting illness. Findings from individual studies were pooled and synthesized using thematic analysis, which identified common, prevalent themes across findings. Results: The search identified 5623 references, of which 28 were included in the final synthesis. Seven psychological propensities were identified as influencing physician judgments regarding whether and when to withhold or de-escalate life-extending treatments resulting in higher treatment intensity: (1) professional identity as someone who extends lifespan, (2) mortality aversion, (3) communication avoidance, (4) conflict avoidance, (5) personal values favoring life extension, (6) decisional avoidance, and (7) over-optimism. Conclusions: Psychological propensities could influence physician judgments regarding whether and when to de-escalate life-extending treatments. Future work should examine how individual and environmental factors combine to create such propensities, and how addressing these propensities could reduce physician-attributed variation in end-of-life care intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the challenges involved in prognosis and end-of-life care. It states that misunderstanding one's prognosis add to bad decision making. An expert panel used a question prompt list to study this. Patients with advanced cancer and health professionals participated. Analysis identified themes including reinforcement of known benefits of question prompt list, appraisal of content and suggestions for further development, and contrast feedbacks in Australian and U. S. patients.

Objective: We examined whether conversations involving Black or Latino patients with advanced cancer differ in the presence or characteristics of prognosis communication.Methods: We audio-recorded initial consultations between 54 palliative care clinicians and 231 hospitalized people with advanced cancer. We coded for the presence and characteristics of prognosis communication. We examined whether the presence or characteristics of prognosis communication differed by patients' self-reported race/ethnicity.Results: In 231 consultations, 75.7% contained prognosis communication. Prognosis communication was less than half as likely to occur during conversations with Black or Latino patients (N = 48) compared to others. Among consultations in which prognosis was addressed, those involving Black or Latino patients were more than 8 times less likely to contain optimistically cued prognoses compared to others.Conclusion: Prognosis communication occurred less frequently for Black and Latino patients and included fewer optimistic cues than conversations with other patients. More work is needed to better understand these observed patterns of prognosis communication that vary by race and ethnicity.Practice Implications: Growing evidence supports prognosis communication being important for end-of-life decision-making and disproportionately rare among non-White populations. Therefore, our findings identify a potentially salient target for clinical interventions that are focused on ameliorating disparities in end-of-life care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Clinician discomfort with death may affect care of patients but has not been well-studied. This study explores oncology clinicians' attitudes surrounding their own death and how these attitudes both affect and are affected by their care of dying patients and their communication with them.Methods: Qualitative interviews with physicians (n=25), nurse practitioners (n=7), and physician assistants (n=1) in medical or hematologic oncology clinical practices about communication styles, care of terminally ill patients, and personal perspectives about mortality.Results: Clinicians described three communication styles used with patients about death and dying: direct, indirect, or selectively direct. Most reported an acceptance of their mortality that was "conditional," meaning that that they could not fully know how they would respond if actually terminally ill. For many clinicians, caring for dying patients affected their outlook on life and death, and their own perspectives on life and death affected their approach to caring for dying patients.Conclusion: An awareness of personal mortality may help clinicians to discuss death more openly with patients and to provide better care.Practice Implications: Efforts to promote self-awareness and communication training are key to facilitating clear communication with and compassionate care of terminally ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]