Do we get it right? Radiation oncology outpatients' perceptions of the patient centredness of life expectancy disclosure
ABSTRACT A patient-centred approach to discussing life expectancy with cancer patients is recommended in Western countries. However, this approach to eliciting and meeting patient preferences can be challenging for clinicians. The aims of this study were the following: (i) to examine cancer patients' preferences for life expectancy disclosure; and (ii) to explore agreement between cancer patients' preferences for, and perceived experiences of, life expectancy disclosure.
Cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment in metropolitan Australia completed a cross-sectional touchscreen computer survey including optional questions about their life expectancy disclosure preferences and experiences.
Of the 208 respondents, 178 (86%) indicated that they would prefer their clinician to ask them before discussing life expectancy, and 30 (14%) indicated that they would prefer others (i.e. clinicians, family) to decide whether they were given life expectancy information. Of the 175 respondents who were classified as having a self- determined or other-determined disclosure experience, 105 (60%) reported an experience of life expectancy disclosure that was in accordance with their preferences. Cohen's κ was -0.04 (95% CI, -0.17, 0.08), indicating very poor agreement between patients' preferences for and perceived experiences of life expectancy disclosure (p = 0.74).
In light of patient-centred prognosis disclosure guidelines, our findings of a majority preference for, and experience of, a self-determined approach to life expectancy disclosure amongst radiation oncology patients are encouraging. However, poor agreement between preferences and experiences highlights that additional effort from clinicians is required in order to achieve a truly patient-centred approach to life expectancy disclosure. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a general statistical methodology for the analysis of multivariate categorical data arising from observer reliability studies. The procedure essentially involves the construction of functions of the observed proportions which are directed at the extent to which the observers agree among themselves and the construction of test statistics for hypotheses involving these functions. Tests for interobserver bias are presented in terms of first-order marginal homogeneity and measures of interobserver agreement are developed as generalized kappa-type statistics. These procedures are illustrated with a clinical diagnosis example from the epidemiological literature.Biometrics 04/1977; 33(1):159-74. DOI:10.2307/2529310 · 1.52 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Informational needs of 60 recently diagnosed cancer patients were assessed in relation to their disease, personal, family, and social concerns. The theoretical framework underlying the study was constructed from theories of coping, appraisal, information seeking, needs, and hierarchy of needs. Categories of analysis were derived from these theories and from findings of previous research. The Derdiarian Informational Needs Assessment was used to gather data. Patients' informational needs were described in relation to harms, threats, and resources and to their importance values associated with the major categories of disease, personal, family, and social concerns. Comparisons of informational needs and their importance values among patients stratified by person- or situation-related variables indicated few differences by gender, age, and stage of cancer. The findings imply that informational needs may be universal and warrant research on their relationship to these variables.Nursing Research 01/1986; 35(5):276-81. DOI:10.1097/00006199-198609000-00005 · 1.50 Impact Factor
Article: The 'Right' Not to know[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is a common view in medical ethics that the patient's right to be informed entails, as well, a correlative right not to be informed, i.e., to waive one's right to information. This paper argues, from a consideration of the concept of autonomy as the foundation for rights, that there can be no such ‘right’ to refuse relevant information, and that the claims for such a right are inconsistent with both deontological and utilitarian ethics. Further, the right to be informed is shown to be a mandatory right (though not a welfare right); persons are thus seen to have both a right and a duty to be informed. Finally, the consequences of this view are addressed: since the way in which we conceptualize our problems tends to determine the actions we take to resolve them, it is important properly to conceptualize patients' requests not to be informed. There may be many reasons for acting in accord with such a request, but it is a mistake to conceptualize one's act as ‘respecting a right possessed by persons’.Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 09/1984; 9(3):301-12. DOI:10.1093/jmp/9.3.301 · 0.79 Impact Factor