scholarly journals 137: End-of-life care in hematology and stem cell transplant patients and evaluation of a hematology-quality of dying assessment (H-QODA)

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
P. Rowlings ◽  
H. Zhang ◽  
Y. Rohr
2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 700-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Lin ◽  
Theresa A. Elko ◽  
Miguel-Angel Perales ◽  
Koshy Alexander ◽  
Ann A. Jakubowski ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juanjuan Zhao ◽  
Liming You ◽  
Hongmei Tao ◽  
Frances Kam Yuet Wong

Abstract Background Assessing the quality of structure and process of end-of-life care can help improve outcomes. There was currently no valid tool for this purpose in Mainland China. The aim of this study is to validate the Chinese version of the Care Evaluation Scale (CES). Methods From January to December 2017, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted among bereaved family members of cancer patients from 10 medical institutes. The reliability of the CES was assessed with Cronbach’s α, and structural validity was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis. Concurrent validity was tested by examining the correlation between the CES total score and overall satisfaction with end-of-life care, quality of dying and death, and quality of life. Results A total of 305 valid responses were analyzed. The average CES score was 70.7 ± 16.4, and the Cronbach’s α of the CES was 0.967 (range: 0.802–0.927 for the 10 domains). The fit indices for the 10-factor model of CES were good(root-mean-square error of approximation, 0.047; comparative fit index, 0.952; Tucker–Lewis index, 0.946; standardized root mean square residual, 0.053). The CES total score was highly correlated with overall satisfaction with medical care (r = 0.775, P < 0.01), and moderately correlated with patients’ quality of life (r = 0.579, P < 0.01) and quality of dying and death (r = 0.570, P < 0.01). In addition, few associations between CES total score and demographic characteristics, except for the family members’ age. Conclusions The Chinese version of the CES is a reliable and valid tool to evaluate the quality of structure and process of end-of-life care for patients with cancer from the perspective of bereaved family in Mainland China.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 1614-1623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark L. Laudenslager ◽  
Teresa L. Simoneau ◽  
Susan K. Mikulich‐Gilbertson ◽  
Crystal Natvig ◽  
Benjamin W. Brewer ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (10) ◽  
pp. 1584-1595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Pivodic ◽  
Tinne Smets ◽  
Nele Van den Noortgate ◽  
Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen ◽  
Yvonne Engels ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 78-78
Author(s):  
Jideuma Ikenna Egwim ◽  
Smita Palejwala

78 Background: Advanced cancers remain a major cause of mortality in Nigeria. Participation in clinical trials (PCTs) and palliative end-of-life care (PEOLC) are two approaches to incurable cancer management in the developed nations but these have been less adopted in Nigeria. This study set out to determine patients’ preferred approach between PCTs and PEOLC for management of advanced cancers in Nigeria. Methods: A survey of 120 advanced cancer patients was conducted using a questionnaire with 5-point Likert scale, variables of interest included demographic information, knowledge and perception about PCTs and PEOLC. Results: Majority of the patients (84%) agree PCTs is an option in management of incurable cancer but just about half accept it is beneficial and will improve their QOL, as against PEOLC, where all the patients considered it an option and deem it beneficial; with 99% and 98% respectively agreeing it will enhance their QOL and that of family members. About 56% believe PCTs carries a risk of burdensome interventions and 52% increased hospital stay at EOL while 47% are of the opinion it will increase cost of care with 45% stating it will lead to increased ICU death. Sixty-nine percent (69%) and 63% respectively agree PCTs increases the suffering of patients and family members while 43% believe it carries a net negative risk-benefit profile, nevertheless, 83% are ready to overlook the risk of PCTs for possible therapeutic benefit while for 87%, the primary motivation for PCTs is personal cure. Majority (58%) believe PCTs does not improve quality of dying/death contrary to PEOLC where 88% believe it would improve the quality of dying/death. Overall, by direct comparison 78%:13% prefer PEOL to PCTs; {X2(p-value), 40.26(0.001)}. Conclusions: Both modalities are acceptable to advanced cancer patients but the study reveals several ethical issues with PCTs including risk of burdensome interventions, suffering of patients, therapeutic misconception and misperception of curability. A major determinant to accepting PEOL is its positive impact on patients’ QOL. Concerted efforts are needed to significantly enhance access of PEOLC to cancer patients.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1927-1931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winnie S. Wang ◽  
Joseph D. Ma ◽  
Sandahl H. Nelson ◽  
Carolyn Revta ◽  
Gary T. Buckholz ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document