Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28597252›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

Clinical practice guidelines of the French Association for Supportive Care in Cancer and the French Society for Psycho-oncology: refusal of treatment by adults afflicted with cancer.

J C Faivre, V Adam, V Block, M Metzger, J Salleron, S Dauchy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Psychiatric assessment for patients who decline cancer treatment: perspectives from medical residents.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Observational
  2. Uveal Melanoma: Refusal of Treatment.Ocular oncology and pathology · 2021
    Article
  3. Review
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.

J C FaivreAcademic Department of Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy, Lorraine Institute of Cancerology - Alexis-Vautrin CLCC [Centre de lutte contre le cancer - Cancer Center] - Unicancer, 6 avenue de Bourgogne - CS 30 519, F-54511, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy cedex, France. jeanchristophe.faivre@gmail.com.
V AdamSupportive Care in Cancer Department, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, F-54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
V BlockFrench Association for Supportive Care in Cancer, 20 rue leblanc, F-7515, Paris, France.
M MetzgerInstitut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Medical Library, F-54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
J SalleronBiostatistics and Epidemiology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, F-54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
S DauchyGustave Roussy, Département de Soins de Support, Université Paris-Saclay, F-94805, Villejuif, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe study's purpose was to develop practical guidelines for assessment and management of refusal of treatment by adults afflicted with cancer.

methodsThe French Association for Supportive Care in Cancer and the French Society for Psycho-oncology gathered a task force that applied a consensus methodology to draft guidelines studied predisposing situations, the diagnosis, regulatory aspects, and the management of refusal of treatment by adults afflicted with cancer.

resultsWe propose five guidelines: (1) be aware of the conditions/profiles of patients most often associated with refusal of treatment so as to adequately underpin the care and support measures; (2) understand the complexity of the process of refusal and knowing how to accurately identify the type and the modalities of the refused treatments; (3) apply a way to systematically analyze refusal, thereby promoting progression from a situation of disaccord toward a consensual decision; (4) devise procedures, according to the legal context, to address refusal of treatment that safeguards the stakeholders in situations of sustained disaccord; and (5) know the indications for ethical collective decision-making.

conclusionThe quality of the relationship between patients and health professionals, and the communication between them are essential components involved in reaching a point of consent or refusal of treatment. A process of systematic analysis of refusal is recommended as the only way to ensure that all of the physiological, psychological, and contextual elements that are potentially involved are taken into account.

Indexed as

Health Planning GuidelinesAdultFranceHumansNeoplasmsPsycho-OncologyTreatment RefusalYoung AdultDecision-makingGuidelinesHealth professional-patient relations/ethicsNeoplasmsRefusal of treatmentReview

Identifiers

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.