Dignity Therapy: A Novel Psychotherapeutic Intervention for Patients Near the End of Life

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (24) ◽  
pp. 5520-5525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey Max Chochinov ◽  
Thomas Hack ◽  
Thomas Hassard ◽  
Linda J. Kristjanson ◽  
Susan McClement ◽  
...  

Purpose This study examined a novel intervention, dignity therapy, designed to address psychosocial and existential distress among terminally ill patients. Dignity therapy invites patients to discuss issues that matter most or that they would most want remembered. Sessions are transcribed and edited, with a returned final version that they can bequeath to a friend or family member. The objective of this study was to establish the feasibility of dignity therapy and determine its impact on various measures of psychosocial and existential distress. Patients and Methods Terminally ill inpatients and those receiving home-based palliative care services in Winnipeg, Canada, and Perth, Australia, were asked to complete pre- and postintervention measures of sense of dignity, depression, suffering, and hopelessness; sense of purpose, sense of meaning, desire for death, will to live, and suicidality; and a postintervention satisfaction survey. Results Ninety-one percent of participants reported being satisfied with dignity therapy; 76% reported a heightened sense of dignity; 68% reported an increased sense of purpose; 67% reported a heightened sense of meaning; 47% reported an increased will to live; and 81% reported that it had been or would be of help to their family. Postintervention measures of suffering showed significant improvement (P = .023) and reduced depressive symptoms (P = .05). Finding dignity therapy helpful to their family correlated with life feeling more meaningful (r = 0.480; P = .000) and having a sense of purpose (r = 0.562; P = .000), accompanied by a lessened sense of suffering (r = 0.327; P = .001) and increased will to live (r = 0.387; P = .000). Conclusion Dignity therapy shows promise as a novel therapeutic intervention for suffering and distress at the end of life.

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 628-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Julião ◽  
Fátima Oliveira ◽  
Baltazar Nunes ◽  
António Vaz Carneiro ◽  
António Barbosa

ABSTRACTObjective:Dignity therapy (DT) is a brief form of psychotherapy developed for patients living with a life-limiting illness that has demonstrated efficacy in treating several dimensions of end-of-life psychological distress. Our aim was to determine the influence of DT on demoralization syndrome (DS), the desire for death (DfD), and a sense of dignity (SoD) in terminally ill inpatients experiencing a high level of distress in a palliative care unit.Method:A nonblinded phase II randomized controlled trial was conducted with 80 patients who were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the intervention group (DT + standard palliative care [SPC]) or the control group (SPC alone). The main outcomes were DS, DfD, and SoD, as measured according to DS criteria, the Desire for Death Rating Scale, and the Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI), respectively. All scales were assessed at baseline (day 1) and at day 4 of follow-up. This study is registered with http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN34354086.Results:Of the 80 participants, 41 were randomized to DT and 39 to SPC. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. DT was associated with a significant decrease in DS compared with SPC (DT DS prevalence = 12.1%; SPC DS prevalence = 60.0%; p < 0.001). Similarly, DT was associated with a significant decrease in DfD prevalence (DT DfD prevalence = 0%; SPC DfD prevalence = 14.3%; p = 0.054). Compared with participants allocated to the control group, those who received DT showed a statistically significant reduction in 19 of 25 PDI items.Significance of results:Dignity therapy had a beneficial effect on the psychological distress encountered by patients near the end of life. Our research suggests that DT is an important psychotherapeutic approach that should be included in clinical care programs, and it could help more patients to cope with their end-of-life experiences.


Author(s):  
Marvin Omar Delgado-Guay

The objective of this study was to establish the feasibility of dignity therapy and determine its impact on psychosocial and existential distress in 100 patients near the end of life. Dignity therapy helped patients to discuss issues that matter most or that they would mostly want to be remembered. Sessions were transcribed and edited, with a returned final version to the patient. This psychological therapy was well accepted, and it did help patients at the end-of-life in many psychosocial and existential issues and increased will to live. This chapter describes the basics of the study, briefly reviews other relevant studies and information, gives a summary and discusses implications, and concludes with a relevant clinical case


2021 ◽  
pp. 495-501
Author(s):  
Harvey Max Chochinov ◽  
Maia S. Kredentser

Maintenance and promotion of patient and family dignity is a core tenet of palliative care and has significant implications for end-of-life experience, with loss of dignity associated with increased suffering and desire for death. This chapter provides an overview of empirical research on dignity at the end of life, including the model of dignity in the terminally ill, measures to assess dignity including the Patient Dignity Inventory and the Dignity Impact Scale, and dignity therapy, an intervention aimed at bolstering dignity, meaning-making, and generativity needs to improve the end-of-life experience for patients and families. These topics are discussed in the context of a proliferation of research in the last decade across a diversity of cultures, languages, and illness groups.


Author(s):  
Valeria Cardenas ◽  
Anna Rahman ◽  
Yujun Zhu ◽  
Susan Enguidanos

Background: Despite some insurance plans now paying for home-based palliative care, recent reports have suggested that insurance coverage for palliative care may be insufficient in expanding patient access to home-based palliative care. Aim: To identify patients’ and caregivers’ perceived barriers to home-based palliative care and their recommendations for overcoming these barriers. Design: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews. Our interview protocol elicited participants’ perspectives on home-based palliative care services; positive and negative aspects of the palliative program explanation; and suggestions for improving messaging around home-based palliative care. Setting/Participants: Twenty-five participants (patients, proxies, and their caregivers) who were eligible for a randomized controlled trial of home-based palliative care were interviewed by telephone. Results: Themes related to home-based palliative care referral barriers included reluctance to have home visits, enrollment timing, lack of palliative care knowledge, misconceptions about palliative care, and patients’ self-perceived health condition. Themes related to recommendations for overcoming these obstacles included ensuring that palliative care referrals come from healthcare providers or insurance companies and presenting palliative care services more clearly. Conclusion: Findings reinforce the need for additional palliative care education among patients with serious illness (and their caregivers) and the importance of delivering palliative care information and referrals from trusted sources.


Author(s):  
Holly R. Cherniwchan

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the demand for end-of-life services and bereavement support, and in many areas of the world, in-person palliative care is struggling to meet these needs. Local infection control measures result in limited visitation rights in hospital and patients are often dying alone. For many years, virtual platforms have been used as a validated alternative to in-person consults for outpatient and home-based palliative care; however, the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual inpatient equivalent is less studied. Virtual inpatient palliative care may offer a unique opportunity for patients to have meaningful interactions with their care team and family while isolated in hospital or in hospice. This narrative review examines strategies employed during the COVID-19 pandemic to implement virtual palliative care services in the inpatient setting. Five key themes were identified in the literature between January 2020-March 2021 in the LitCovid NCBI database: 1) overall acceptability of virtual inpatient palliative care during the pandemic, 2) important logistical considerations when developing a virtual inpatient palliative care platform, 3) commonly used technologies for delivering virtual services, 4) strategies for harnessing human resources to meet increased patient volume, and 5) challenges of virtual inpatient palliative care implementation. Upon review, telepalliative care can meet the increased demand for safe and accessible inpatient palliative care during a pandemic; however, in some circumstances in-person services should still be considered. The decision for which patients receive what format of care—in-person or virtual—should be decided on a case-by-case basis.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 880-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Sarah Temin ◽  
Erin R. Alesi ◽  
Amy P. Abernethy ◽  
Tracy A. Balboni ◽  
...  

Purpose An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. Clinical Context Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient's illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available. Recent Data Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care—when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care—leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE. ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 31-31
Author(s):  
Laura Donovan ◽  
Donna Buono ◽  
Melissa Kate Accordino ◽  
Jason Dennis Wright ◽  
Andrew B. Lassman ◽  
...  

31 Background: GBM is associated with a poor prognosis and early death in elderly patients. Prior studies have demonstrated a high burden of hospitalization in this population. We sought to evaluate and examine trends in hospitalizations and EOL care in GBM survivors. Methods: Using SEER-Medicare linked data, we performed a retrospective observational cohort study of patients aged ≥ 65 years diagnosed with GBM from 2005-2017 who lived at least 6 months from the time of diagnosis. Aggressive EOL care was defined as: chemotherapy or radiotherapy within 14 days of death (DOD), surgery within 30 DOD, > 1 emergency department visit, ≥ 1 hospitalization or intensive care unit admission within 30 DOD; in-hospital death; or hospice enrollment ≤ 3 DOD. We evaluated age, race, ethnicity, marital status, gender, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, prior treatment and percentage of time hospitalized. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with aggressive end of life care. Results: Of 5827 patients, 2269 (38.9%) survived at least 6 months. Among these, 1106 (48.7%) survived 6-12 months, 558 (24.6%) survived 12-18 months, and 605 (26.7%) survived > 18 months. Patients who survived 6-12 months had the highest burden of hospitalization and spent a median of 10.6% of their remaining life in the hospital compared to those surviving 12-18 months (5.4%) and > 18 months (3%) (P < 0.001). 10.1% of the cohort had claims for palliative care services; 49.8% of initial palliative care consults occurred in the last 30 days of life. Hospice claims existed in 83% with a median length of stay 33 days (IQR 12, 79 days). 30.1% of subjects received aggressive EOL care. Receiving chemo at any time (OR 1.510, 95% CI 1.221-1.867) and spending ≥ 20% of life in the hospital after diagnosis (OR 3.331, 95% CI 2.567-4.324) were associated with aggressive EOL care. Women (OR 0.759, 95% CI 0.624-0.922), patients with higher socioeconomic status (OR 0.533, 95% CI 0.342-0.829), and those diagnosed ≥ age 80 (OR 0.723, 95% CI 0.528-0.991) were less likely to receive aggressive EOL care. Race, ethnicity, marital status, and extent of initial resection were not associated with aggressive EOL care. Conclusions: A minority of elderly patients with GBM in the SEER-Medicare database survived ≥ 6 months; hospitalizations were common and patients spent a significant proportion of their remaining life hospitalized. Although hospice utilization was high in this cohort, 30% of patients received aggressive EOL care. Despite the aggressive nature of GBM, few patients had palliative care consults during their illness. Increased utilization of palliative care services may help reduce hospitalization burden and aggressive EOL care in this population.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simen A Steindal ◽  
Andréa Aparecida Goncalves Nes ◽  
Tove E. Godskesen ◽  
Susanne Lind ◽  
Alfhild Dhle ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Due to the increasing number of people in need of palliative care services and the current health care professional workforce strain, providing equitable, quality palliative care has become a challenge. Telehealth could be an innovative approach to palliative care delivery, enabling patients to spend more time or even remain at home, if they wish, throughout the illness trajectory. However, no previous systematic mixed studies reviews have synthesized evidence on patients’ experiences of the advantages and challenges of telehealth for home-based palliative care. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic mixed studies review is to critically appraise and synthesize findings from studies that investigated patients’ use of telehealth in home-based palliative care with a focus on the advantages and challenges experienced by the patients. METHODS This article describes the protocol for a systematic mixed studies review with a convergent design. The reporting will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. A systematic search was performed in eight databases for studies published from January 2010 to June 2020. The search will be updated in 2021. Pairs of authors will independently assess eligibility, extract data and assess methodological quality. The data will then be analyzed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS We described the rationale and design of a systematic mixed studies review. The database searches were performed on June 25, 2020. Assessment of eligibility and further steps have not yet been performed. Results are anticipated by August 2021. CONCLUSIONS Following the ethos of patient-centered palliative care, this systematic mixed studies review could contribute recommendations for practice and policy enabling the development of telehealth applications and services that align with patients’ preferences and needs when using telehealth applications and services at home.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document