Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26446232›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2015

A National Survey to Systematically Identify Factors Associated With Oncologists' Attitudes Toward End-of-Life Discussions: What Determines Timing of End-of-Life Discussions?

Masanori Mori, Chikako Shimizu, Asao Ogawa, Takuji Okusaka, Saran Yoshida, Tatsuya Morita

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Timing of prognostic discussions in people with advanced cancer: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. End-of-life discussions, preference concordance, and good death: insights from a nationwide mortality follow-back survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Observational
  5. Early and late code status documentation in cancer patients managed by a dedicated supportive care team.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Unrealistic expectations and disclosure of incurability in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Masanori MoriDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan.
Chikako ShimizuBreast and Medical Oncology Division.
Asao OgawaPsycho-Oncology Division, Research Center for Innovative Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan asogawa@east.ncc.go.jp.
Takuji OkusakaHepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology Division.
Saran YoshidaCenter for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Japan.
Tatsuya MoritaPalliative and Supportive Care Division, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan.
National Cancer Center Hospital East · JPSeirei Hamamatsu General Hospital · JPSeirei Mikatabara General Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnd-of-life discussions (EOLds) occur infrequently until cancer patients become terminally ill.

methodsTo identify factors associated with the timing of EOLds, we conducted a nationwide survey of 864 medical oncologists. We surveyed the timing of EOLds held with advanced cancer patients regarding prognosis, hospice, site of death, and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status; and we surveyed physicians' experience of EOLds, perceptions of a good death, and beliefs regarding these issues. Multivariate analyses identified determinants of early discussions.

resultsAmong 490 physicians (response rate: 57%), 165 (34%), 65 (14%), 47 (9.8%), and 20 (4.2%) would discuss prognosis, hospice, site of death, and DNR status, respectively, "now" (i.e., at diagnosis) with a hypothetical patient with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer. In multivariate analyses, determinants of discussing prognosis "now" included the physician perceiving greater importance of autonomy in experiencing a good death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34; p = .014), less perceived difficulty estimating the prognosis (OR: 0.77; p = .012), and being a hematologist (OR: 1.68; p = .016). Determinants of discussing hospice "now" included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.58; p = .018), less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.67; p = .002), and no responsibility as treating physician at end of life (OR: 1.94; p = .031). Determinants of discussing site of death "now" included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.83; p = .008) and less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.74; p = .034). The determinant of discussing DNR status "now" was less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.49; p = .003).

conclusionReflection by oncologists on their own values regarding a good death, knowledge about validated prognostic measures, and learning skills to manage discomfort talking about death is helpful for oncologists to perform appropriate EOLds. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncologists' own perceptions about what is important for a "good death," perceived difficulty in estimating the prognosis, and discomfort in talking about death influence their attitudes toward end-of-life discussions. Reflection on their own values regarding a good death, knowledge about validated prognostic measures, and learning skills to manage discomfort talking about death are important for improving oncologists' skills in facilitating end-of-life discussions.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansTerminally IllAttitudeDo-not-resuscitateEnd-of-life discussionHospiceOncologist

Identifiers

PMID26446232
PMCPMC4718424
OpenAlexW2136482265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.