Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32383072›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Preferences for life expectancy discussions following diagnosis with a life-threatening illness: a discrete choice experiment.

Amy Waller, Laura Wall, Lisa Mackenzie, Scott D Brown, Martin H N Tattersall, Rob Sanson-Fisher

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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.

Amy WallerHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. amy.waller@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0987-9424
Laura WallDepartment of Psychology, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Lisa MackenzieHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Scott D BrownDepartment of Psychology, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Martin H N TattersallChris O'Brien Lifehouse, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Rob Sanson-FisherHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.

Funding

Australian National Breast Cancer Foundation PF-16-011Australian Research Council 150101262The Cancer Council NSW CSR 11-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore in a sample of adult cancer patients: (1) the relative influence of initiation source, information format and consultation format on preferred approach to life expectancy disclosure using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); and (2) whether patient age, cancer type and perceived prognosis were associated with preferences within the three attributes.

methodsA DCE survey of adult solid tumour and haematological cancer patients. Participants chose between three hypothetical scenarios about life expectancy disclosure consisting of three attributes: initiation source (i.e. doctor versus patient-initiated discussion), information content (i.e. estimate presented as best-worst-typical length of life case scenario versus median survival time) and consultation format (i.e. two 20-min versus one 40-min consultation). Respondents selected their most preferred scenario within each question.

resultsThree hundred and two patients completed the DCE (78% consent rate). Initiation source was the most influential predictor of patient choice. More preferred a doctor deliver life expectancy information as soon as it is available rather than waiting for the patient to ask (59% vs 41% z = - 7.396, p < 0.01). More patients preferred the two 20-min rather than the one 40-min consultation format (55% vs 45%, z = 4.284, p < 0.01). Information content did not influence choice. Age, cancer type, and patient-perceived prognosis were not associated with preferences.

conclusionHealthcare professionals should assess cancer patients' preferences for engaging in life expectancy discussions as soon as they have this information, and ensure patients have adequate time to consider the information they receive, seek additional information and involve others if they wish.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrognosisSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunicationDiscrete choice experimentHaematologyLife expectancyOncologyPatient-centred care

Identifiers

PMID32383072

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.