ArticlePloS one2022
Discussing prognosis and the end of life with patients with advanced cancer or COPD: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient autonomy versus family centric decision making in end-of-life care.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals' representation toward optimal palliative care provision for COPD patients: a cross-sectional survey.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore patients' experiences and recommendations for discussions about their prognosis and end of life with their physicians.
methodsPatients with advanced cancer or advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were enrolled in qualitative interviews, which were analyzed with a phenomenological and thematic approach.
resultsDuring interviews with fourteen patients (median age 64 years), we identified the following themes for discussion about prognosis and the end of life: topics discussed, the timing, the setting, physician-patient relationship, responsibilities for clinicians, and recommendations. Patients preferred the physician to initiate such discussion, but wanted to decide about its continuation and content. The discussions were facilitated by an established physician-patient relationship or attendance of relatives. Patients with cancer had had discussions about prognosis at rather clear-cut moments of deterioration than patients with COPD. Patients with COPD did not consider end-of-life discussions a responsibility of the pulmonologist. Patients recommended an understandable message, involvement of relatives or other clinicians, sufficient time, and sensitive non-verbal communication.
conclusionsPatients appreciated open, sensitive, and negotiable discussions about prognosis and the end of life. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients' recommendations could be used for communication training. Possible differences in the need for such discussions between patients with cancer or COPD warrant further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.