A National Survey to Systematically Identify Factors Associated With Oncologists’ Attitudes Toward End-of-Life Discussions: What Determines Timing of End-of-Life Discussions?

  • Mori M
  • Shimizu C
  • Ogawa A
  • et al.
55Citations
Citations of this article
90Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

© AlphaMed Press 2015. Background. End-of-life discussions (EOLds) occur infrequently until cancer patients become terminally ill. Methods. To identify factors associated with the timing of EOLds, we conducted a nationwide survey of 864 medical oncologists. We surveyed the timing of EOLds held with advanced cancer patients regarding prognosis, hospice, site of death, and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status; and we surveyed physicians’ experience of EOLds, perceptions of a good death, and beliefs regarding these issues. Multivariate analyses identified determinants of early discussions. Results. Among 490 physicians (response rate: 57%), 165 (34%), 65 (14%), 47 (9.8%), and 20 (4.2%) would discuss prognosis, hospice, site of death, and DNR status, respectively, “now” (i.e., at diagnosis) with a hypothetical patient with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer. In multivariate analyses, determinants of discussing prognosis “now” included the physician perceiving greater importance of autonomy in experiencing a good death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34; p = .014), less perceived difficulty estimating the prognosis (OR: 0.77; p = .012), and being a hematologist (OR: 1.68; p = .016). Determinants of discussing hospice “now” included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.58; p5.018), less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.67; p5.002), and no responsibility as treating physician at end of life (OR: 1.94; p =.031). Determinants of discussing site of death “now” included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.83; p = .008) and less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.74; p = .034). The determinant of discussing DNR status “now” was less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.49; p = .003). Conclusion. Reflection by oncologists on their own values regarding a good death, knowledge about validated prognostic measures, and learning skills to manage discomfort talking about death is helpful for oncologists to perform appropriate EOLds.

References Powered by Scopus

Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment

2281Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Communication about serious illness care goals: A review and synthesis of best practices

1073Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: Predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences

666Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Sentiment analysis of health care tweets: Review of the methods used

139Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Advance care planning in Asian culture

127Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Advance Care Planning in Asia: A Systematic Narrative Review of Healthcare Professionals’ Knowledge, Attitude, and Experience

86Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mori, M., Shimizu, C., Ogawa, A., Okusaka, T., Yoshida, S., & Morita, T. (2015). A National Survey to Systematically Identify Factors Associated With Oncologists’ Attitudes Toward End-of-Life Discussions: What Determines Timing of End-of-Life Discussions? The Oncologist, 20(11), 1304–1311. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0147

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 22

48%

Researcher 13

28%

Professor / Associate Prof. 8

17%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 39

74%

Nursing and Health Professions 10

19%

Philosophy 2

4%

Social Sciences 2

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free