Preferences regarding end-of-life cancer care and associations with good-death concepts: A population-based survey in Japan

89Citations
Citations of this article
105Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The aims of this study were to clarify end-of-life cancer care preferences and associations with good-death concepts. Methods: The general population was sampled using a stratified random sampling method (N = 2548; response rate = 51%) and bereaved families from 12 certified palliative care units ('PCU-bereaved families') were surveyed (N = 513; response rate = 70%). The respondents reported their end-of-life care preferences and good-death concepts. Results: Regarding place of end-of-life care, approximately 50% of the general population preferred 'Home', while 73% of PCU-bereaved families preferred 'PCU'. The concepts of 'Maintaining hope and pleasure' and 'Dying in a favorite place' were associated with the preference for 'Home'. Regarding prognostic disclosure, approximately 50% of the participants preferred some level of negotiation with the physician. The concept of 'Control over the future' was associated with this preference. Regarding treatment of severe refractory physical distress, 75% of the general population and 85% of the PCU-bereaved families preferred palliative sedation therapy. The concepts of 'Physical and psychological comfort' and 'Unawareness of death' were associated with this preference. Conclusions: End-of-life care preferences were associated with good-death concepts. It would be useful for health-care workers to discuss patients' good-death concepts to support subsequent treatment decisions. © 2007 European Society for Medical Oncology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sanjo, M., Miyashita, M., Morita, T., Hirai, K., Kawa, M., Akechi, T., & Uchitomi, Y. (2007). Preferences regarding end-of-life cancer care and associations with good-death concepts: A population-based survey in Japan. Annals of Oncology, 18(9), 1539–1547. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdm199

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free