Cargando…

Communication with patients with limited prognosis—an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study

PURPOSE: Oncological societies advocate the continuity of care, specialized communication, and early integration of palliative care. To comply with these recommendations, an interprofessional, longitudinally-structured communication concept, the Milestone Communication Approach (MCA), was previously...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Siegle, Anja, Unsöld, Laura, Deis, Nicole, Krug, Katja, Bossert, Jasmin, Krisam, Johannes, Jung, Corinna, Jünger, Jana, Wensing, Michel, Thomas, Michael, Villalobos, Matthias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36547732
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07474-9
_version_ 1784856777458712576
author Siegle, Anja
Unsöld, Laura
Deis, Nicole
Krug, Katja
Bossert, Jasmin
Krisam, Johannes
Jung, Corinna
Jünger, Jana
Wensing, Michel
Thomas, Michael
Villalobos, Matthias
author_facet Siegle, Anja
Unsöld, Laura
Deis, Nicole
Krug, Katja
Bossert, Jasmin
Krisam, Johannes
Jung, Corinna
Jünger, Jana
Wensing, Michel
Thomas, Michael
Villalobos, Matthias
author_sort Siegle, Anja
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Oncological societies advocate the continuity of care, specialized communication, and early integration of palliative care. To comply with these recommendations, an interprofessional, longitudinally-structured communication concept, the Milestone Communication Approach (MCA), was previously developed, implemented, and evaluated. Our research question is: what are possible explanations from the patient perspective for prognosis and advance care planning being rarely a topic and for finding no differences between MCA and control groups concerning distress, quality of life, and mood? METHODS: A pragmatic epistemological stance guided the study. A mixed-methods design was chosen including a pragmatic randomized trial (n = 171), qualitative interviews with patients (n = 13) and caregivers (n = 12), and a content analysis (133 milestone conversations, 54 follow-up calls). Data analysis involved the pillar integration process. RESULTS: Two pillar themes emerged: 1 “approaching prognosis and advance care planning”; 2 “living with a life-threatening illness”. Information on prognosis seemed to be offered, but patients’ reactions were diverse. Some patients have to deal with having advanced lung cancer while nonetheless feeling healthy and seem not to be ready for prognostic information. All patients seemed to struggle to preserve their quality of life and keep distress under control. CONCLUSION: Attending to patients’ questions, worries and needs early in a disease trajectory seems key to helping patients adjust to living with lung cancer. If necessary clinicians should name their predicament: having to inform about prognosis versus respecting the patients wish to avoid it. Research should support better understanding of patients not wishing for prognostic information to successfully improve communication strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration: German Clinical Trial Register No. DRKS00013649, registration date 12/22/2017, (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013649) and No. DRKS00013469, registration date 12/22/2017, (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013469).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9780125
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97801252022-12-24 Communication with patients with limited prognosis—an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study Siegle, Anja Unsöld, Laura Deis, Nicole Krug, Katja Bossert, Jasmin Krisam, Johannes Jung, Corinna Jünger, Jana Wensing, Michel Thomas, Michael Villalobos, Matthias Support Care Cancer Research PURPOSE: Oncological societies advocate the continuity of care, specialized communication, and early integration of palliative care. To comply with these recommendations, an interprofessional, longitudinally-structured communication concept, the Milestone Communication Approach (MCA), was previously developed, implemented, and evaluated. Our research question is: what are possible explanations from the patient perspective for prognosis and advance care planning being rarely a topic and for finding no differences between MCA and control groups concerning distress, quality of life, and mood? METHODS: A pragmatic epistemological stance guided the study. A mixed-methods design was chosen including a pragmatic randomized trial (n = 171), qualitative interviews with patients (n = 13) and caregivers (n = 12), and a content analysis (133 milestone conversations, 54 follow-up calls). Data analysis involved the pillar integration process. RESULTS: Two pillar themes emerged: 1 “approaching prognosis and advance care planning”; 2 “living with a life-threatening illness”. Information on prognosis seemed to be offered, but patients’ reactions were diverse. Some patients have to deal with having advanced lung cancer while nonetheless feeling healthy and seem not to be ready for prognostic information. All patients seemed to struggle to preserve their quality of life and keep distress under control. CONCLUSION: Attending to patients’ questions, worries and needs early in a disease trajectory seems key to helping patients adjust to living with lung cancer. If necessary clinicians should name their predicament: having to inform about prognosis versus respecting the patients wish to avoid it. Research should support better understanding of patients not wishing for prognostic information to successfully improve communication strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration: German Clinical Trial Register No. DRKS00013649, registration date 12/22/2017, (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013649) and No. DRKS00013469, registration date 12/22/2017, (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013469). Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-12-22 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9780125/ /pubmed/36547732 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07474-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Siegle, Anja
Unsöld, Laura
Deis, Nicole
Krug, Katja
Bossert, Jasmin
Krisam, Johannes
Jung, Corinna
Jünger, Jana
Wensing, Michel
Thomas, Michael
Villalobos, Matthias
Communication with patients with limited prognosis—an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study
title Communication with patients with limited prognosis—an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study
title_full Communication with patients with limited prognosis—an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study
title_fullStr Communication with patients with limited prognosis—an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study
title_full_unstemmed Communication with patients with limited prognosis—an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study
title_short Communication with patients with limited prognosis—an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study
title_sort communication with patients with limited prognosis—an integrative mixed-methods evaluation study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36547732
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07474-9
work_keys_str_mv AT siegleanja communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT unsoldlaura communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT deisnicole communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT krugkatja communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT bossertjasmin communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT krisamjohannes communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT jungcorinna communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT jungerjana communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT wensingmichel communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT thomasmichael communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy
AT villalobosmatthias communicationwithpatientswithlimitedprognosisanintegrativemixedmethodsevaluationstudy