Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31955277›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

Let us talk about death: gender effects in cancer patients' preferences for end-of-life discussions.

C Seifart, J Riera Knorrenschild, M Hofmann, Y Nestoriuc, W Rief, P von Blanckenburg

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Advance Care Planning: A Story of Trust Within the Family.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  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 2 institutions in 1 country.

C SeifartFaculty of Medicine, Research Group Medical Ethics, AGEM, Philipps-University of Marburg, Baldingerstraße 1, 35043, Marburg, Germany. Carola.Seifart@staff.uni-marburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6262-0518
J Riera KnorrenschildDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Haematology and Oncology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
M HofmannDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Y NestoriucClinical Psychology, Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
W RiefDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
P von BlanckenburgDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Philipps University of Marburg · DEHelmut Schmidt University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients with advanced cancer often receive suboptimal end-of-life (EOL) care. Particularly males with advanced cancer are more likely to receive EOL care that is more aggressive, even if death is imminent. Critical factors determining EOL care are EOL conversations or advance care planning. However, information about gender-related factors influencing EOL conversations is lacking. Therefore, the current study investigates gender differences concerning the content, the desired time point, and the mode of initiation of EOL conversations in cancer patients.

methodsIn a cross-sectional study, 186 female and male cancer patients were asked about their preferences for EOL discussions using a semi-structured interview, focusing on (a) the importance of six different topics (medical and nursing care, organizational, emotional, social, and spiritual/religious aspects), (b) the desired time point, and (c) the mode of discussion initiation.

resultsThe importance of EOL topics differs significantly regarding issue (p = 0.002, η

conclusionThe tendency of patients to talk late about EOL issues increases the risk of delayed or missed EOL conversations, which may be due to a knowledge gap regarding the possibility of disease-associated incapability. Furthermore, there are significant gender differences influencing the access to EOL conversations. Therefore, for daily clinical routine, we suggest an early two-step, gender-sensitive approach to end-of-life conversations.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGender IdentityHumansMaleNeoplasmsTerminal CareCancerCommunicationEnd-of-life discussionsGender effectsPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID31955277
PMCPMC7447655
OpenAlexW2999407436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.