دورية أكاديمية

Oncologists’ perspective on advance directives, a French national prospective cross-sectional survey – the ADORE study

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Oncologists’ perspective on advance directives, a French national prospective cross-sectional survey – the ADORE study
المؤلفون: Amélie Cambriel, Kevin Serey, Adrien Pollina-Bachellerie, Mathilde Cancel, Morgan Michalet, Jacques-Olivier Bay, Carole Bouleuc, Jean-Pierre Lotz, Francois Philippart
المصدر: BMC Medical Ethics, Vol 25, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2024)
بيانات النشر: BMC, 2024.
سنة النشر: 2024
المجموعة: LCC:Medical philosophy. Medical ethics
مصطلحات موضوعية: Ethics, Advance directives, Cancer, Tumor, Oncologist, Trust person, Medical philosophy. Medical ethics, R723-726
الوصف: Abstract Background The often poor prognosis associated with cancer necessitates empowering patients to express their care preferences. Yet, the prevalence of Advance Directives (AD) among oncology patients remains low. This study investigated oncologists' perspectives on the interests and challenges associated with implementing AD. Methods A French national online survey targeting hospital-based oncologists explored five areas: AD information, writing support, AD usage, personal perceptions of AD's importance, and respondent's profile. The primary outcome was to assess how frequently oncologists provide patients with information about AD in daily clinical practice. Additionally, we examined factors related to delivering information on AD. Results Of the 410 oncologists (50%) who responded to the survey, 75% (n = 308) deemed AD relevant. While 36% (n = 149) regularly inform patients about AD, 25% (n = 102) remain skeptical about AD. Among the respondents who do not consistently discuss AD, the most common reason given is the belief that AD may induce anxiety (n = 211/353; 60%). Of all respondents, 90% (n = 367) believe patients require specific information to draft relevant AD. Physicians with experience in palliative care were more likely to discuss AD (43% vs 32.3%, p = 0.027). Previous experience in critical care was associated with higher levels of distrust towards AD (31.5% vs 18.8%, p = 0.003), and 68.5% (n = 281) of the respondents expressed that designating a “person of trust” would be more appropriate than utilizing AD. Conclusion Despite the perceived relevance of AD, only a third of oncologists regularly apprise their patients about them. Significant uncertainty persists about the safety and relevance of AD.
نوع الوثيقة: article
وصف الملف: electronic resource
اللغة: English
تدمد: 1472-6939
العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6939Test
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-024-01046-8
الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/794efb59a5b846e9902e574ca78fda53Test
رقم الانضمام: edsdoj.794efb59a5b846e9902e574ca78fda53
قاعدة البيانات: Directory of Open Access Journals
الوصف
تدمد:14726939
DOI:10.1186/s12910-024-01046-8