↓ Skip to main content

Is shared decision-making vanishing at the end-of-life? A descriptive and qualitative study of advanced cancer patients’ involvement in specific therapies decision-making

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is shared decision-making vanishing at the end-of-life? A descriptive and qualitative study of advanced cancer patients’ involvement in specific therapies decision-making
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12904-015-0057-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvan Beaussant, Florence Mathieu-Nicot, Lionel Pazart, Christophe Tournigand, Serge Daneault, Elodie Cretin, Aurélie Godard-Marceau, Aline Chassagne, Hélène Trimaille, Carole Bouleuc, Patrice Cuynet, Eric Deconinck, Régis Aubry

Abstract

Little is known about what is at stake at a subjective level for the oncologists and the advanced cancer patients when they face the question whether to continue, limit or stop specific therapies. We studied (1) the frequency of such questioning, and (2) subjective determinants of the decision-making process from the physicians' and the patients' perspectives. (1) All hospitalized patients were screened during 1 week in oncology and/or hematology units of five institutions. We included those with advanced cancer for whom a questioning about the pursuit, the limitation or the withholding of specific therapies (QST) was raised. (2) Qualitative design was based on in-depth interviews. In conventional units, 12.8 % of cancer patients (26 out of 202) were concerned by a QST during the study period. Interviews were conducted with all physicians and 21 advanced cancer patients. The timing of this questioning occurred most frequently as physicians estimated life expectancy between 15 days and 3 months. Faced with the most frequent dilemma (uncertain risk-benefit balance), physicians showed different ways of involving patients. The first two were called the "no choice" models: 1) trying to resolve the dilemma via a technical answer or a "wait-and-see" posture, instead of involving the patients in the questioning and the thinking; and 2), giving a "last minute" choice to the patients, leaving to them the responsibility of the decision. In a third model, they engaged early in shared reflections and dialogue about uncertainties and limits with patients, proxies and care teams. These schematic trends influenced patients' attitudes towards uncertainty and limits, as they were influenced by these ones. Individual and systemic barriers to a shared questioning were pointed out by physicians and patients. This study indicate to what extent these difficult decisions are related to physicians' and patients' respective and mutually influenced abilities to deal with and share about uncertainties and limits, throughout the disease trajectory. These insights may help physicians, patients and policy makers to enrich their understanding of underestimated and sensitive key issues of the decision-making process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 20%
Psychology 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 35 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,350,522
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#1,093
of 1,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,555
of 252,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#19
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.