Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29725803›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2018

Quality versus quantity in end-of-life choices of cancer patients and support persons: a discrete choice experiment.

Amy Waller, Rob Sanson-Fisher, Scott D Brown, Laura Wall, Justin Walsh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Patient Perspectives of Quality Compared to Quantity of Life Regarding Orbital Exenteration.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Amy WallerHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia. amy.waller@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0987-9424
Rob Sanson-FisherHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Scott D BrownDepartment of Psychology, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Laura WallDepartment of Psychology, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Justin WalshHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council 150101262National Health and Medical Research Council 1059760The Cancer Council NSW CSR 11-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore in a sample of medical oncology outpatients and their nominated support persons (SPs): (1) the relative influence of pain, consciousness and life extension on end-of-life choices using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); (2) the extent to which SPs can predict the choices of index patients and (3) whether having a previous end-of-life discussion was associated with dyad agreement.

methodsAdult medical oncology patients and their SPs were approached for consent to complete a survey containing a DCE. Participants chose between three unlabelled care scenarios characterised by three attributes: pain (mild, moderate or severe), consciousness (some, half or most of time) and extension of life (1, 2 or 3 weeks). Respondents selected (1) most-preferred and (2) least-preferred scenarios within each question. SPs answered the same questions but from patient's perspective.

resultsA total of 110 patients and 64 SPs responded overall (42 matched patient-SP dyads). For patients, pain was the most influential predictor of most- and least-preferred scenarios (z = 12.5 and z = 12.9). For SPs, pain was the only significant predictor of most and least-preferred scenarios (z = 9.7 and z = 11.5). Dyad agreement was greater for choices about least- (69%) compared to most-preferred scenarios (55%). Agreement was slightly higher for dyads reporting a previous EOL discussion (68 versus 48%; p = 0.065).

conclusionPatients and SPs place significant value on avoiding severe pain when making end-of-life choices, over and above level of consciousness or life extension. People's views about end-of-life scenarios they most as well as least prefer should be sought.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPsychosocial Support SystemsQuality of Health CareAdultAdvance Care PlanningAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasmsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdvance care planningCaregiverDiscrete choice experimentEnd-of-life careOncology

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.