Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:17:21.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Practices and evaluations of prognostic disclosure for Japanese cancer patients and their families from the family's point of view

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2012

Saran Yoshida*
Affiliation:
Center for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer CenterTokyo, Japan
Mariko Shiozaki
Affiliation:
International Center for Human Sciences, Kinki University, Higashi-Osaka City, 5, Japan
Makiko Sanjo
Affiliation:
Department of Adult Health Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Toho University, Ota-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Tatsuya Morita
Affiliation:
Department of Palliative and Supportive Care, Palliative Care Team, and Seirei Hospice, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 433-8558, Japan
Kei Hirai
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Communication Design, Graduate School of Human Sciences & Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
Satoru Tsuneto
Affiliation:
Department of Palliative Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
Yasuo Shima
Affiliation:
Department of Palliative Medicine, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Saran Yoshida, Center for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective:

The primary end points of this analysis were to explore 1) the practices of prognostic disclosure for patients with cancer and their family members in Japan, 2) the person who decided on the degree of prognosis communication, and 3) family evaluations of the type of prognostic disclosure.

Method:

Semistructured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 60 bereaved family members of patients with cancer who were admitted to palliative care units in Japan.

Results:

Twenty-five percent of patients and 75% of family members were informed of the predicted survival time of the patient. Thirty-eight percent of family members answered that they themselves decided on to what degree to communicate the prognosis to patients and 83% of them chose not to disclose to patients their prognosis or incurability. In the overall evaluation of prognosis communication, 30% of the participants said that they regretted or felt doubtful about the degree of prognostic disclosure to patients, whereas 37% said that they were satisfied with the degree of prognostic disclosure and 5% said that they had made a compromise. Both in the “prognostic disclosure” group and the “no disclosure” group, there were family members who said that they regretted or felt doubtful (27% and 31%, respectively) and family members who said that they were satisfied with the degree of disclosure (27% and 44%, respectively).

Significance of results:

In conclusion, family members assume the predominant role as the decision-making source regarding prognosis disclosure to patients, and they often even prevent prognostic disclosure to patients. From the perspective of family members, any one type of disclosure is not necessarily the most acceptable choice. Future surveys should explore the reasons why family members agree or disagree with prognostic disclosures to patients and factors correlated with family evaluations.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Back, A.L., Arnold, R.M.Baile, W.F., et al. (2005). Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 55, 164177.Google Scholar
Fujimori, M., Akechi, T.Morita, T. et al. (2007). Preferences of cancer patients regarding the disclosure of bad news. Psychooncology, 16, 573581.Google Scholar
Gabbay, B.B., Matsumura, Etzioni, S., et al. (2005). Negotiating end-of-life decision making: a comparison of Japanese and U.S. residents' approaches. Academic Medicine, 80, 617621.Google Scholar
Hagerty, R.G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. M., et al. (2005). Communicating prognosis in cancer care: A systematic review of the literature. Annals of Oncology, 16, 10051053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hari, D., Mark, Z., Bharati, D., et al. (2007). Patients' attitude towards concept of right to know. Kathmandu University Medical Journal, 5, 591595.Google Scholar
Harris, J.J., Shao, J. & Sugarman, J. (2003). Disclosure of cancer diagnosis and prognosis in Northern Tanzania. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 905913.Google Scholar
Heyland, D.K., Allan, D.E., Rocker, G., et al. (2009). Discussing prognosis with patients and their families near the end of life: Impact on satisfaction with end-of-life care. Open Medicine, 3, e101110.Google Scholar
Heyland, D.K., Dodek, P., Rocker, G., et al. (2006). What matters most in end-of-life care: perceptions of seriously ill patients and their family members. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174, 627633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Innes, S. & Payne, S. (2009). Advanced cancer patients' prognostic information preferences: a review. Palliative Medicine, 23, 2939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, Y., Liu, C., Li, J.Y., et al. (2007). Different attitudes of Chinese patients and their families toward truth telling of different stages of cancer. Psychooncology, 16, 928936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamont, E.B. & Christakis, N.A. (2001). Prognostic disclosure to patients with cancer near the end of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134, 10961105.Google Scholar
LeClaire, M.M., Oakes, J.M., & Weinert, C.R. (2005). Communication of prognostic information for critically ill patients. Chest, 128, 17281735.Google Scholar
Mack, J.W., Wolfe, J., Grier, H.E., et al. (2006). Communication about prognosis between parents and physicians of children with cancer: Parent preferences and the impact of prognostic information. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 52655270.Google Scholar
Meeker, M.A. (2004). Family surrogate decision making at the end of life: Seeing them through with care and respect. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 204225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyashita, M., Morita, T., Tsuneto, S., et al. (2008). The Japan Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation study (J-HOPE study): Study design and characteristics of participating institutions. The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care, 25, 223232.Google Scholar
Mystakidou, K., Parpa, E.Tsilila, E., et al. (2004). Cancer information disclosure in different cultural contexts. Supportive Care in Cancer, 12, 147154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ngo-Metzger, Q., August, K. J.Srinivasan, M., et al. (2008). End-of-Life care: guidelines for patient-centered communication. American Family Physician, 77, 167174.Google ScholarPubMed
Parks, S.M. & Winter, L. (2009). End of life decision-making for cancer patients. Primary Care, 36, 811823.Google Scholar
Tang, S.T. & Lee, S. Y. (2004). Cancer diagnosis and prognosis in Taiwan: Patient preferences versus experiences. Psychooncology, 13, 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, S.T., Liu, T. W.Lai, M. S., et al. (2006). Congruence of knowledge, experiences, and preferences for disclosure of diagnosis and prognosis between terminally-ill cancer patients and their family caregivers in Taiwan. Cancer Investigation, 24, 360366.Google Scholar
The, A.M., Hak, T., Koeter, G., et al. (2000). Collusion in doctor–patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.), 321, 13761381.Google Scholar
Yoshida, S., Hirai, K., Morita, T., et al. (2011). Experience of Families of Japanese Patients with Cancer for Prognostic Disclosure. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 41, 594603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yun, Y.H., Lee, C. G., Kim, S. Y., et al. (2004). The attitudes of cancer patients and their families toward the disclosure of terminal illness. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 307314.Google Scholar