Quality of life changes and intensive care preferences in terminal cancer patients

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 1309-1316 ◽  
Author(s):  
In Cheol Hwang ◽  
Bhumsuk Keam ◽  
Young Ho Yun ◽  
Hong Yup Ahn ◽  
Young-Ae Kim

AbstractObjective:There is scarce research on the short-term fluctuations in end-of-life (EoL) care planning for seriously ill patients. The aim of our study was to investigate the stability of preferences regarding treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) and identify the factors associated with changes in preferences in terms of quality of life (QoL).Method:A prospective examination on preference changes for ICU care in 141 terminal cancer patients was conducted. Patients were categorized according to their change in preference during the final two months of their lives into four categories: (1) the keep–accept group, (2) the keep–reject group, (3) the change to accept group, and (4) the change to reject group. Using multiple logistic analyses, we explored the association between patient demographics, health-related QoL, and changes in ICU preference.Results:The overall stability of ICU preferences near the end of life was 66.7% (κ = 0.33, p < 0.001). Married patients were more likely to change their preference regarding ICU care [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) toward accept 12.35, p = 0.021; aOR toward reject 10.56, p = 0.020] than unmarried patients. Patients with stable physical function tended to accept ICU care (aOR = 5.05, p = 0.023), whereas those with poor performance (aOR = 5.32, p = 0.018), worsened QoL (aOR = 8.34, p = 0.007), or non-aggravated fatigue (aOR = 8.36, p = 0.006) were more likely to not accept ICU care.Significance of results:The attitudes of terminally ill cancer patients regarding ICU care at the end of life were not stable over time, and changes in their QoL were associated with a tendency to change their preferences about ICU care. Attention should thus be paid to patients' QoL changes to improve medical decision making with regard to EoL care.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anli Leng ◽  
Elizabeth Maitland ◽  
Siyuan Wang ◽  
Stephen Nicholas ◽  
Kuixu Lan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Knowing terminal cancer patients’ treatment preferences will improve patient-centered health care, better inform surrogates and medical staff of patient preferences and enhance the quality of end-of-life (EoL) care. In China, little is known about terminal cancer patients’ preferences. We aimed to examines the preferences for EoL care of terminal cancer patients. Methods Data on 183 terminal cancer patients aged over 50 years old was collected by discrete choice experiment (DCE). Each DCE scenario described six attributes: hospitalization days,life extension, quality of life (QoL), adverse treatment reactions, place of death preference and out-of-pocket payments.Patient preferences were derived using a mixed logit model and the marginal willingness to pay (WTP) were estimated from the regression coefficients. Results Patients’ preferences for moderate survive time, better quality of life, lower risk of adverse reaction, home death and lower payments were all statistically significant in driving choice between treatment models. Extending life and QoL were the most important attributes. Patients were willing to pay RMB256,895.45 to improve QoL from a bad level to a very good level, significantly higher than their willingness to pay for half additional life year (RMB233,446.16) and one additional life year (RMB182,298.76). This indicates that patients were not willing to blindly pursue life extension and neglect the QoL,but preferred to trade off life extension for QoL. The predicted uptake of optimal end-of-life care scenario was 91.04%. Conclusions Our study contributes to the development of patient-centered preferences for end-of-life care models that improve advanced terminal patient’s care and provide empirical evidence for physicians and surrogates to operationalize end-of-life care trade-offs.


Cancer ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 1090-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Vigano ◽  
Nora Donaldson ◽  
Irene J. Higginson ◽  
Eduardo Bruera ◽  
Salaheddin Mahmud ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 961-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Bovero ◽  
P. Leombruni ◽  
M. Miniotti ◽  
G. Rocca ◽  
R. Torta

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshitaka Morishima ◽  
Jason Lee ◽  
Tetsuya Otsubo ◽  
Hiroshi Ikai ◽  
Yuichi Imanaka

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franco Toscani ◽  
Cinzia Brunelli ◽  
Guido Miccinesi ◽  
Massimo Costantini ◽  
Michele Gallucci ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document