Cargando…
Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review
BACKGROUND: Collusion in cancer care is the diplomatic concealment of information between a triad of the health care professional (HCP), patient, and caregiver. Free and expressive communication is determined by multiple factors, which establishes a healthy balance between ‘patient-centric’ and ‘fam...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35693193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26323524221101077 |
_version_ | 1784723123525910528 |
---|---|
author | Sutar, Roshan Chaudhary, Pooja |
author_facet | Sutar, Roshan Chaudhary, Pooja |
author_sort | Sutar, Roshan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Collusion in cancer care is the diplomatic concealment of information between a triad of the health care professional (HCP), patient, and caregiver. Free and expressive communication is determined by multiple factors, which establishes a healthy balance between ‘patient-centric’ and ‘family-centric’ decision making. The lack of a universal approach to prognostic disclosure techniques emphasizes the need for a systematic review of contemporary practice. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted till June 2020 using themes based on cancer, communication, prognostic disclosure, and collusion by using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies involving 10,569 subjects were studied for their utility on prognostic disclosure using different communication methods and interfaces. Twenty-three studies used a face-to-face interview with subjects while in-person telephonic interviews were conducted in two studies, 16 studies implicated semi-structured questionnaires, and 6 studies mentioned the development of a new technique/tool for disclosure. The duration of a session for prognosis-disclosure ranged from 22 min to 1 h. The involvement of palliative care specialists and mental health professionals was limited during the disclosure of the prognosis. CONCLUSION: The findings of the review indicate that patients in cancer care are aware of their diagnosis and to a certain extent of prognosis despite nondisclosure by their family members and treating teams. This review emphasizes the assessment of ‘disclosure wishes’ among patients and caregivers in separate interviews rather than simply relying on one specific method of interviewing. The nonconfrontational approach and training among HCPs are of utmost importance to build therapeutic resilience among the treating team involved in cancer care. Since many factors such as family wishes, cultural dissonance, medical model, and patient perception could become barriers to prognostic disclosure, there is a need to develop a universal approach to prognostic disclosure and handling associated collusion. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9178750 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91787502022-06-10 Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review Sutar, Roshan Chaudhary, Pooja Palliat Care Soc Pract Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Collusion in cancer care is the diplomatic concealment of information between a triad of the health care professional (HCP), patient, and caregiver. Free and expressive communication is determined by multiple factors, which establishes a healthy balance between ‘patient-centric’ and ‘family-centric’ decision making. The lack of a universal approach to prognostic disclosure techniques emphasizes the need for a systematic review of contemporary practice. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted till June 2020 using themes based on cancer, communication, prognostic disclosure, and collusion by using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies involving 10,569 subjects were studied for their utility on prognostic disclosure using different communication methods and interfaces. Twenty-three studies used a face-to-face interview with subjects while in-person telephonic interviews were conducted in two studies, 16 studies implicated semi-structured questionnaires, and 6 studies mentioned the development of a new technique/tool for disclosure. The duration of a session for prognosis-disclosure ranged from 22 min to 1 h. The involvement of palliative care specialists and mental health professionals was limited during the disclosure of the prognosis. CONCLUSION: The findings of the review indicate that patients in cancer care are aware of their diagnosis and to a certain extent of prognosis despite nondisclosure by their family members and treating teams. This review emphasizes the assessment of ‘disclosure wishes’ among patients and caregivers in separate interviews rather than simply relying on one specific method of interviewing. The nonconfrontational approach and training among HCPs are of utmost importance to build therapeutic resilience among the treating team involved in cancer care. Since many factors such as family wishes, cultural dissonance, medical model, and patient perception could become barriers to prognostic disclosure, there is a need to develop a universal approach to prognostic disclosure and handling associated collusion. SAGE Publications 2022-06-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9178750/ /pubmed/35693193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26323524221101077 Text en © The Author(s), 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Sutar, Roshan Chaudhary, Pooja Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review |
title | Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review |
title_full | Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review |
title_fullStr | Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review |
title_full_unstemmed | Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review |
title_short | Prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review |
title_sort | prognostic disclosure in cancer care: a systematic literature review |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35693193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26323524221101077 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sutarroshan prognosticdisclosureincancercareasystematicliteraturereview AT chaudharypooja prognosticdisclosureincancercareasystematicliteraturereview |