Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32997186›Full record

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

Nurses' communication difficulties when providing end-of-life care in the oncology setting: a cross-sectional study.

Shao Wei Toh, Valerie Tantiana Hollen, Elaine Ang, Yee Mei Lee, M Kamala Devi

Open access · greenAbstract 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 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
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shao Wei TohNational University Cancer Institute, Singapore, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. tohshaowei94@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0225-6494
Valerie Tantiana HollenNational University Cancer Institute, Singapore, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore.
Elaine AngNational University Cancer Institute, Singapore, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore.
Yee Mei LeeNational University Cancer Institute, Singapore, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore.
M Kamala DeviAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Level 2, Clinical Research Centre, Block MD 11,10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
National University Cancer Institute, Singapore · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo (1) examine the communication difficulties nurses experience when providing end-of-life (EOL) care, (2) establish the correlation between communication difficulties across various stakeholders and (3) determine the impact sociodemographic factors has on the communication difficulties experienced.

methods124/178 (69.7%) nurses from oncology wards of a tertiary hospital were recruited. Sociodemographic survey and three validated subscales: Communication with Patient and Family (CPF), Explanation to Family (EF) and Reassessment of Current Treatment and Nursing Care (RCTNC) were used to collect the data. Data were analysed with Independent Samples T test, One-Way Analysis of Variance and Pearson's correlation coefficient.

resultsMean score was highest for CPF (8.75 ± 2.24) and lowest for RCTNC (6.32 ± 2.26). Positive correlations were found between CPF with EF (r = 0.613, p < 0.001), CPF with RCTNC (r = 0.243, p = 0.007) and EF with RCTNC (r = 0.370, p < 0.001). Age (p = 0.048), years of experience (p = 0.001), religion (p = 0.034) and EOL care training received (p = 0.040) were significant factors for CPF subscale while age (p = 0.011), years of experience (p = 0.001), educational qualification (p = 0.003) and EOL care training received (p = 0.026) were the significant factors for EF subscale.

conclusionNurses experienced more communication difficulties with patients and families than with the healthcare team. When nurses experience communication difficulties with the healthcare team, they also tend to experience communication difficulties with patients and families and when providing explanations to families. Nurses experienced greater communication difficulties when they are younger, are non-graduates, have less years of experience, adopted a religion or did not receive training in EOL care.

trial registrationClinical Trials.gov Identifier: 2019/00680 (Domain Specific Review Board).

Indexed as

AdultCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsNursesTerminal CareYoung AdultCancerCommunicationEnd-of-life careNurses

Identifiers

PMID32997186
OpenAlexW3091744411

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.