Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T10:08:57.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Exploring patient awareness of palliative care - optimal timing and preferred approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2024

Fulvio Bergamo Trevizan
Affiliation:
Institute of Education and Research, GPQual - Research Group on Palliative Care and Quality of Life - Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, SP Brazil
Carlos Eduardo Paiva
Affiliation:
Institute of Education and Research, GPQual - Research Group on Palliative Care and Quality of Life - Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, SP Brazil
Laura Fiacadori de Almeida
Affiliation:
Institute of Education and Research, GPQual - Research Group on Palliative Care and Quality of Life - Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, SP Brazil
Camila Zimmermann
Affiliation:
Department of Supportive Care (C.Z.), Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
Eduardo Bruera
Affiliation:
Department of Palliative Care, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX USA
Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva*
Affiliation:
Institute of Education and Research, GPQual - Research Group on Palliative Care and Quality of Life - Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, SP Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

To explore patients’ awareness levels of palliative care (PC) and how this awareness shapes their preferences regarding the timing and approach for discussing it.

Methods

The study, conducted at a prominent institution specializing in oncology care, enrolled women aged 18–75 years who had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Patients completed guiding questions: Do you know what PC is?, When is the most appropriate time and the most appropriate way to discuss PC?. The interviews were conducted exclusively via video call and were recorded, transcribed, and then deleted.

Results

The study involved 61 participants, averaging 49 years old. Almost half (47.5%) had completed high school. Qualitative data analysis revealed 9 thematic categories. Regarding the first question, 2 divergent categories emerged: care for life and threatening treatment. For the second question, opinions diverged into 4 categories: At an early stage, mid-course of the disease, as late as possible, and no time at all. For the third question, 3 categories emerged: communication and support, care setting and environment, and improving the PC experience.

Significance of Results

This study reveals diverse perspectives on patients’ awareness and preferences for discussing PC, challenging the misconception that it’s only for end-of-life (EOL) situations. Comprehending PC influences when and how patients discuss it. If tied solely to EOL scenarios, discussions may be delayed. Conversely, understanding its role in enhancing advance support encourages earlier conversations. Limited awareness might delay talks, while informed patients actively contribute to shared decision-making. Some patients prefered early involvement, others find mid-treatment discussions stress-relieving. Community support, quiet environments, and accessible resources, underscoring the importance of a calm, empathetic approach, emphasizing the importance of understanding its role in advance support and providing valuable implications for enhancing patient care practices, theories, and policies.

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Currently, the scientific literature explores palliative care (PC) protocols and strategies, with established ones to be tested or validated. Structured interventions aimed at improving communication and support for end-of-life (EOL) care preferences in metastatic breast cancer patients encompass symptom management, coping strategies, and treatment decision-making. Findings demonstrate enhanced documentation of EOL care discussions in electronic health records and positive patient-reported outcomes in quality of life, anxiety, depression, and hospice utilization. Additionally, the studies offer a comprehensive review of psychological interventions for cancer patients, classifying them into cognitive-behavioral, mindfulness, and relaxation techniques (Greer et al. Reference Greer, Moy and El-Jawahri2022; Semenenko et al. Reference Semenenko, Banerjee and Olver2023).

Notably, approaching cancer patients for discussions and interventions often faces high rates of refusal, denial, fear, and sadness (Gontijo et al. Reference Gontijo Garcia, Meira and de Souza2023; Trevizan et al. Reference Trevizan, Paiva and de Almeida2023). This raises critical questions: Are cancer patients prepared for PC discussions? Do they grasp its nature? Furthermore, when is the appropriate time, and what would be their preferred mode of discussion? This brings up a broader concern about whether clinical efforts are genuinely attuned to the voices of these patients and aligned with their preferences.

PC stands as a multifaceted approach to care that transcends the mere management of symptoms associated with serious illnesses (Back Reference Back2020; Radbrunch et al. Reference Radbruch, De Lima and Knaul2020). Beyond symptom control, it encompasses discussions on quality of life, patient values, and the alleviation of physical, emotional, and spiritual distress. Importantly, these discussions extend beyond EOL scenarios, weaving through the entire trajectory of a life-threatening illness (Radbruch et al. Reference Radbruch, De Lima and Knaul2020; Strang Reference Strang2022). A delicate balance is struck in PC conversations, requiring acknowledgment of the challenging diagnosis’s reality while fostering hope through support and comfort. This dynamic process necessitates a nuanced understanding of patient needs, cultural sensitivities, and effective communication strategies (Back Reference Back2020; Kuosmanen et al. Reference Kuosmanen, Hupli and Ahtiluoto2021; Saretta et al. Reference Saretta, Doñate-Martínez and Alhambra-Borrás2022). In cancer care, early PC is pivotal, and research confirms that its initiation at diagnosis improves symptom control and enhances patient and caregiver outcomes (Gofton et al. Reference Gofton, Agar and George2022; Temel et al. Reference Temel, Petrillo and Greer2022).

Despite evident benefits, PC faces taboos and stigmas that may originate from patients, family caregivers, and/or health professional (Santos Neto et al. Reference Santos Neto, Paiva and de Lima2014). Denial and resistance to PC discussions may stem from misconceptions, equating it solely with EOL care (Saretta et al. Reference Saretta, Doñate-Martínez and Alhambra-Borrás2022). These taboos arise from a lack of knowledge about its scope, often coupled with the misconceived notion that it implies relinquishing curative treatment (Bandieri et al. Reference Bandieri, Borelli and Gilioli2023). Preserving patient autonomy and enhancing acceptance hinge on healthcare professionals’ ability to discern when and how to broach PC discussions. A fundamental aspect involves understanding the patient’s perspective and actively listening to their concerns. Dismissing misconceptions, disseminating precise information, and selecting opportune moments for dialogue play a crucial role in diminishing resistance, alleviating stigmas, and, consequently, enhancing patient acceptance of early referral to PC (Bandieri et al. Reference Bandieri, Borelli and Gilioli2023).

In this context, hearing what the patient has to say is fundamental. Giving them space to acknowledge and validate their wishes, emotions, fears, and preferences promotes trust and facilitates more meaningful conversations. This approach not only contributes to improving patient outcomes but also initiates a paradigm shift in the perception and acceptance of PC (Greer et al. Reference Greer, Moy and El-Jawahri2022). Thus, the study aimed to explore patients’ awareness levels of PC and how this awareness shapes their preferences regarding the timing and approach for discussing it.

Methods

Study design

This is a qualitative descriptive study, which constitutes the second phase of an investigation. The first phase, involving quantitative data, has already been published (Trevizan et al. Reference Trevizan, Paiva and de Almeida2023). The qualitative aspect of this study entails a content analysis based on responses to 3 guiding questions.

Participants

All patients were recruited from the Women’s Outpatient Clinic and the Chemotherapy Infusion Center of a Brazilian hospital, which stands as one of the largest cancer treatment centers in Latin America, and adhered to all predetermined eligibility criteria. The study included females diagnosed with breast cancer, aged between 18 and 75 years, who were aware of their cancer diagnosis and undergoing treatment, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncologic Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) of ≤2. Exclusion criteria applied to individuals encountering challenges in establishing online video call connections or exhibiting significant deficits in auditory, visual, or verbal language skills. Participants were briefed on the purpose of the study and understood it. Ethical approval had been granted, and participants reviewed the study information documentation before providing their written informed consent to be involved.

Data collection and analysis

Approximately seven to 14 days before the interviews, patients received an educational leaflet developed by the researchers. The material included technical and illustrated information about PC, covering topics such as “What is PC?,” “Who is PC for?,” and “Why is PC important?.” The goal of this instructional material was to convey essential knowledge and reduce potential response bias associated with questions about “how” and “when.” Furthermore, for patients who agreed to participate, semi-structured interviews were conducted by the primary author (FBT), a male clinical psychologist, master in health psychology, with extensive experience. After completing a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire, participants engaged in three guiding inquiries: (1) Are you familiar with the concepts of PC? What is PC all about?; (2) When do you think is the optimal timing for discussions regarding PC?; and (3) What approaches do you find most suitable for addressing PC?.

These interviews were exclusively conducted via video conferencing and carefully recorded. LFdA transcribed the interviews in full, and the transcripts were independently verified by FBT and BSRP, representing a multistep approach to ensure accuracy. FBT and LFdA independently performed a floating reading to separate the main speeches and eliminate excessive information. Following that, under the oversight of another researcher (BSRP), a peer review process was conducted until a consensus was established.

Qualitative data analysis was conducted using Bardin’s discourse analysis method, a qualitative research approach designed to systematically analyze language use in social contexts. The 3 main steps of the method included pre-analysis, where the researcher familiarized themselves with the data; analysis, involving breaking down the data into smaller units and identifying themes; and interpretation, drawing conclusions about the meaning of the data (Bardin Reference Bardin2016).

The analysis involved gathering, organizing, and preparing fully transcribed speeches to identify patterns, themes, categories, and meanings. Analysis units were selected, and a coding system was created to represent themes or concepts. Codes, concise phrases encapsulating pertinent content elements, were then grouped into clusters. An analysis of similarities and relationships among clusters followed. After the formation of clusters, the coding process began, and the complete speeches were revisited, leading to the emergence of thematic categories and subcategories. During this step, the clusters were carefully examined, and when extracts matching the categories were encountered, the respective codes were assigned. As the codes were categorized and organized into broader groups, it became possible to discern trends and patterns.

The qualitative data was analyzed using Iramuteq 0.7 software. The qualitative method followed the Consolidated Criteria for Qualitative Research Reports (Tong et al. Reference Tong, Sainsbury and Craig2007). All study processes were approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Barretos Cancer Hospital, under registration number 4.987.629.

Results

In this study, 61 patients were included. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the patients.

Table 1. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the patients (N = 61)

Notes: SD: standard deviation; N: number of participants; (%): percentage; ECOG-PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status.

The interviews conducted for the study totaled a duration of 8 hours and 38 minutes, with an average duration of approximately 9 minutes per interview. Figure 1 visually presents the discourse frequency graph, illustrating the grouping and similarity of patients’ speeches. These graphs also demonstrate the clustering of patients based on similarities in their discourse.

Note: Software: Iramuteq. (A.) Representation of the relationships between discourses per patient; (B.) Representation of the relationships between terms and their respective occurrences.

Figure 1. Analysis of classification, occurrence and relationships of terms present in patients’ discourses and the interrelationship of terms. The proximity of lines indicates similarities, suggesting shared terms within the same speech, while greater distance signifies dispersed and isolated terms within speeches.

Figure 2 presents a network representation of term similarities. Clusters of nodes depict groups of related terms, offering insights into dominant themes and their interconnections.

Note: Software: Iramuteq.

Figure 2. Analysis of similarities and relationships between patients’ narrative variables. The size of nodes corresponds to term frequency, and the line thickness indicates the strength of associations.

Figure 3 provides a comprehensive overview of patients’ responses systematically categorized based on 3 key questions, resulting in the identification of 9 main categories and a total of 28 subcategories.

Figure 3. Graphic description of the questions, categories, and subcategories based on the participants’ statements.

When examining patients’ perspectives on PC, the answers obtained in the first question were categorized into themes, resulting in 2 main categories and 7 subcategories, as depicted in Table 2.

Table 2. Are you familiar with the concepts of PC? What PC is all about?

Notes: P.: patient’s id; “…” indicates incomplete sentence on the part of the participant; […] indicates part of the interview omitted by the authors for conciseness.

Table 4 offers insights into patients’ preferred approaches for addressing PC. With 3 categories and 9 subcategories, these diverse perspectives underscore the need for patient-centered and adaptable approaches, considering elements such as emotional support, comfortable environments, accessibility options, clear communication, and education to enhance the PC experience.

Table 4. What approaches do you find most suitable for addressing PC?

Notes: P.: patient’s id; “…” indicates incomplete sentence on the part of the participant; […] indicates part of the interview omitted by the authors for conciseness.

Table 3 presents patients’ views on the optimal timing for PC discussions, with responses categorized into 3 primary categories comprising 12 distinct subcategories. This elucidates the nuanced considerations surrounding when to initiate PC discussions, emphasizing the importance of individualized approaches considering emotional states, treatment progress, and cultural factors.

Table 3. When would you consider the optimal timing for discussions regarding PC?

Notes: P.: patient’s id; “…” indicates incomplete sentence on the part of the participant; […] indicates part of the interview omitted by the authors for conciseness.

Word clouds, generated from analyzed data, encapsulate patients’ insights into the definition, timing, and approach of PC (Fig. 4). Patients perceived PC as providing emotional support, pain relief, symptom management, and EOL planning, though some mistakenly believed it was only for those with no cure. Patients expressed a preference for early PC discussions, ideally at diagnosis or treatment initiation. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of clear, empathetic communication and often preferred clinic settings with prepared medical and psychological teams.

Notes: A.: Are you familiar with the concepts of PC? What PC is all about?; B.: When would you consider the optimal timing for discussions regarding PC?; and C.: What approaches do you find most suitable for addressing PC?.

Figure 4. Representation by word cloud of the most frequent occurrences of answers to the questions.

Discussion

This study explored patients’ awareness of PC, examining optimal timing and preferred approaches. Awareness of PC influenced how and when patients found it appropriate to discuss. Patients’ perception of PC shaped their preferences in timing and approach. While associating PC with EOL may have hindered discussions, a clear awareness of PC may have stimulated earlier consideration, addressing patient goals and preferences while active participation was feasible. However, misconceptions created reluctance in some patients; nonetheless, informed individuals actively sought conversations, expressing preferences for information delivery. Shifting perception from PC as a transition from curative to supportive care fostered willingness for holistic discussions (Trevizan et al. Reference Trevizan, Paiva and de Almeida2023).

In this datas, the educational background of patients was relevant, with 47.5% having completed high school, impacting their ability to interpret and comprehend health information (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Roldan and Nichipor2022). Education shapes awareness of diagnosis and prognosis, influencing health literacy and patient engagement in PC discussions (Kuosmanen et al.Reference Kuosmanen, Hupli and Ahtiluoto2021).

When defining PC, patients viewed it as lifelong care and holistic support throughout serious illnesses (Back Reference Back2020; Wantonoro, Reference Wantonoro, Suryaningsih and Anita2022). They valued PC’s advanced support, which integrates psychological and physical aspects, reflecting holistic well-being (Rego and Nunes Reference Rego and Nunes2019). For some patients, PC was seen as beyond conventional medical approaches (Rego and Nunes Reference Rego and Nunes2019; Semenenko et al. Reference Semenenko, Banerjee and Olver2023; Wake Reference Wake2022). For patients facing incurable conditions, PC was essential for attentive monitoring and to prevent unnecessary suffering (Andriastuti et al. Reference Andriastuti, Halim and Tunjungsari2022; Chung et al. Reference Chung, Sun and Ruel2022).

Contrarily, some patients held fears and stigmas about PC (Semenenko et al. Reference Semenenko, Banerjee and Olver2023). Data revealed emotional challenges associated with limited treatment options and EOL considerations. Patients linked PC with advanced disease stages, expressing sadness and viewing it as a difficult transition (Emanuel et al. Reference Emanuel, Solomon and Chochinov2023). This balance addressed the limitations of medical interventions and existential concerns during life-threatening stages (Bennardi et al. Reference Bennardi, Diviani and Gamondi2020). Anxiety and vulnerability arose from the perception that PC was only for those actively dying (Greer et al. Reference Greer, Moy and El-Jawahri2022; Ivey and Johnston Reference Ivey and Johnston2022).

‘Nothing more to be done,” “No cure,” and “Death anxiety” were closely linked subcategories (Emanuel et al. Reference Emanuel, Solomon and Chochinov2023; Martí-García et al. Reference Martí-García, Fernández-Férez and Fernández-Sola2023; Pătru et al. Reference Pătru, Călina and Pătru2014). Patients felt sadness, viewing PC as a sign that conventional treatments were exhausted. PC was seen as daunting, marking a challenging disease transition when conventional resources were depleted (Greer et al. Reference Greer, Moy and El-Jawahri2022). Patients struggled to connect PC with alleviating death-related anxieties, intensifying anxieties due to the perceived proximity to death (Beng et al. Reference Beng, Xin and Ying2022; Emanuel et al. Reference Emanuel, Solomon and Chochinov2023).

While some patients associated PC with EOL, others emphasized early PC discussions (Gofton et al. Reference Gofton, Agar and George2022; Kuosmanen et al. Reference Kuosmanen, Hupli and Ahtiluoto2021; Temel et al. Reference Temel, Petrillo and Greer2022). Timing perspectives were influenced by emotional state and treatment progression (Murray et al. Reference Murray, Kendall and Boyd2005; Pedrini Cruz Reference Pedrini Cruz2022). Some suggested early discussions aligning with chemotherapy initiation, balancing information needs with potential distress (Gofton et al. Reference Gofton, Agar and George2022), while others found presenting this information during diagnosis disruptive (Gofton et al. Reference Gofton, Agar and George2022; Kida et al. Reference Kida, Olver and Yennu2021).

I believe that when doctors begin chemotherapy treatment, because if you receive this information earlier, when you are still in the process of exams, you become very afraid. Oncology patients often focus a lot on chemotherapy. (P.006)

Patients may delay PC discussions until the disease significantly advances, influenced by fear of death, cultural taboos, and aggressive treatments (Abel and Kellehear Reference Abel and Kellehear2022; Santos Neto et al. Reference Santos Neto, Paiva and de Lima2014). During this period, they may be more open to discussing symptom management and EOL considerations (Mathews et al. Reference Mathews, Hausner and Avery2021), but early discussions may evoke emotional implications and worries (Rhondali et al. Reference Rhondali, Burt and Wittenberg-Lyles2013).

Some patients found it challenging to identify the right time for PC discussions due to time constraints or cultural inappropriateness (Emanuel et al. Reference Emanuel, Solomon and Chochinov2023). These individuals feared such discussions because of their negative connotations related to worsening health, ineffective treatments, and impending death (Bandieri et al. Reference Bandieri, Borelli and Gilioli2023; Ivey and Johnston Reference Ivey and Johnston2022; Rhondali et al. Reference Rhondali, Burt and Wittenberg-Lyles2013; Dalal et al. Reference Dalal, Palla and Hui2011). Balancing the optimal timing for PC with patients’ preferences, cultural sensitivities, and individual readiness proved challenging.

When it comes to strategies for engaging in PC conversations, patients stressed the importance of personalized, multidisciplinary approaches, emphasizing clear, gentle, and direct communication from doctors (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Roldan and Nichipor2022; Rothschild et al. Reference Rothschild, Chaiyachati and Finck2022).

There shouldn’t be too much beating around the bush; it’s important to be straightforward, yet gentle and direct. You will find a way to ensure we don’t suffer. (P.010)

Patients favored calm settings, such as clinic rooms with psychologists, for PC discussions (Kuosmanen et al. Reference Kuosmanen, Hupli and Ahtiluoto2021). This setting was seen as conducive to addressing difficult topics (Greer et al. Reference Greer, Moy and El-Jawahri2022). Dedicated resources were crucial to simplify and facilitate PC in hospitals (Robson and Craswell Reference Robson and Craswell2022). Patients desired more interactive conversations and multidisciplinary teams for individualized care (Gofton et al. Reference Gofton, Agar and George2022; Rothschild et al. Reference Rothschild, Chaiyachati and Finck2022).

In addition, patients desired PC discussions in specialized units, staffed by PC-trained teams (Ferner et al. Reference Ferner, Nauck and Laufenberg-Feldmann2020). They believed these teams offered clearer guidance and explained unique PC aspects more effectively (Grabda and Lim Reference Grabda and Lim2021). Adapting environments to meet patients’ needs ensured a compassionate experience (Robson and Craswell Reference Robson and Craswell2022). To enhance accessibility, patients suggested more follow-ups, material distribution, and the integration of PC discussions into waiting rooms (Robson and Craswell Reference Robson and Craswell2022). Visual elements conveyed empathy and understanding, serving as educational tools (Robson and Craswell Reference Robson and Craswell2022).

Transparent communication is crucial, even in challenging situations (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Roldan and Nichipor2022). Patients advocated for post-treatment groups to share coping strategies (Bandieri et al. Reference Bandieri, Borelli and Gilioli2023; Kuosmanen et al. Reference Kuosmanen, Hupli and Ahtiluoto2021). Diverse workforces may address varied needs, but cultural sensitivity training is crucial to avoid perpetuating cultural assumptions about healthcare (Cain et al. Reference Cain, Surbone and Elk2018). Adapting PC strategies to diverse preferences and cultural contexts improves the experience (Cain et al. Reference Cain, Surbone and Elk2018). Collaboration with communities may help healthcare facilities create culturally informed approaches, harmonizing cultural perceptions with practicalities to improve the PC experience (Cain et al. Reference Cain, Surbone and Elk2018).

In conclusion, awareness is pivotal for determining the timing and nature of PC discussions, empowering patients and fostering a collaborative care approach. It is perceived holistically, offering support throughout the entire illness process. Despite some patients associating PC only with EOL care, early discussions are deemed appropriate. As treatment progresses, PC discussions alleviate the patient’s burden amid information demands at diagnosis. Serene environments, like PC clinics, are preferred, while proposed accessibility options, such as frequent follow-ups and educational materials, aim to enhance comprehension, avoid omissions, ensure clarity, and foster a support network, providing holistic health education.

This study has limitations, including the sample being limited to female breast cancer patients, potentially restricting data generalization. The study’s focus solely on female breast cancer patients is justified by the well-documented vulnerability of women to oncological diseases, especially breast cancer, and the unique psychosocial challenges they face. However, focusing on a homogeneous cohort of breast cancer patients enabled a more standardized, rigorous, and targeted analysis of the results and their implications for clinical practice. The use of video conferencing may limit the observation of body language and non-verbal cues; however, the researchers made a careful effort to assess all content, identifying changes in the tone of voice associated with emotional shifts, among other factors. Future studies should explore PC discussions in different cultural contexts and conduct longitudinal studies to assess evolving patient preferences at various disease stages.

Acknowledgments

We extend our sincere thanks to the Barretos Cancer Hospital, specifically the dedicated team of doctors, nurses, and nursing technicians at the Chemotherapy Infusion Center. We are also grateful to the participating patients and their family members, especially for providing them with the necessary support during the videoconferences. Lastly, we express special appreciation to the members of the GPQual for their unwavering and invaluable assistance.

Competing interests

Nothing to disclose.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [grant number 313601/2021-6] and São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [grant number 2022/03842-1].

References

Abel, J and Kellehear, A (2022) Public health palliative care: Reframing death, dying, loss and caregiving. Palliative Medicine 36(5), 768769. doi:10.1177/02692163221096606CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andriastuti, M, Halim, PG, Tunjungsari, E, et al. (2022) Home-based palliative intervention to improve quality of life in children with cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 23(9), 30293034. doi:10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.9.3029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Back, AL (2020) Patient-clinician communication issues in palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 38(9), 866876. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00128CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bandieri, E, Borelli, E, Gilioli, F, et al. (2023) Stigma of palliative care among patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers on early palliative care. Cancers (Basel) 15(14), . doi:10.3390/cancers15143656CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bardin, L (2016) Análise de conteúdo/Laurence Bardin; tradução Luís Antero Reto,. Augusto Pinheiro. São Paulo: Edições 70, .Google Scholar
Beng, TS, Xin, CA, Ying, YK, et al. (2022) Hope in palliative care: A thematic analysis. Journal of Palliative Care 37(2), 177182. doi:10.1177/0825859720948976CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennardi, M, Diviani, N, Gamondi, C, et al. (2020) Palliative care utilization in oncology and hemato-oncology: A systematic review of cognitive barriers and facilitators from the perspective of healthcare professionals, adult patients, and their families. BMC Palliative Care 19(1), . doi:10.1186/s12904-020-00556-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cain, CL, Surbone, A, Elk, R, et al. (2018) Culture and palliative care: Preferences, communication, meaning, and mutual decision making. Journal of Pain Symptom Management 55(5), 14081419. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.01.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, JJ, Roldan, CS, Nichipor, NA, et al. (2022) Prognostic understanding and goals of palliative radiotherapy: A qualitative study. Journal of Pain Symptom Management 64(6), 567576. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2022.08.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, V, Sun, V, Ruel, N, et al. (2022) Improving palliative care and quality of life in pancreatic cancer patients. Journal of Palliative Medicine 25(5), 720727. doi:10.1089/jpm.2021.0187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalal, S, Palla, S, Hui, D, et al. (2011) Association between a name change from palliative to supportive care and the timing of patient referrals at a comprehensive cancer center. Oncologist 16(1), 105111. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emanuel, LL, Solomon, S, Chochinov, HM, et al. (2023) Death anxiety and correlates in cancer patients receiving palliative care. Journal of Palliative Medicine 26(2), 235243. doi:10.1089/jpm.2022.0052CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferner, M, Nauck, F and Laufenberg-Feldmann, R (2020) Palliativmedizin meets Intensivmedizin [Palliative care in intensive care units]. Anästhesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 55(1), 4153. doi:10.1055/a-0862-4790Google Scholar
Gofton, C, Agar, M and George, J (2022) Early implementation of palliative and supportive care in hepatocellular carcinoma. Seminars in Liver Disease 42(4), 514530. doi:10.1055/a-1946-5592Google ScholarPubMed
Gontijo Garcia, GS, Meira, KC, de Souza, AH, et al. (2023) Anxiety and depression disorders in oncological patients under palliative care at a hospital service: A cross-sectional study. BMC Palliative Care 22(1), . doi:10.1186/s12904-023-01233-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabda, M and Lim, FA (2021) Palliative care consult among older adult patients in intensive care units: An integrative review. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly 44(2), . doi:10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000358CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greer, JA, Moy, B, El-Jawahri, A, et al. (2022) Randomized trial of a palliative care intervention to improve end-of-life care discussions in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 20(2), 136143. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2021.7040CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ivey, GD and Johnston, FM (2022) Barriers to equitable palliative care utilization among patients with cancer. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America 31(1), 920. doi:10.1016/j.soc.2021.07.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kida, K, Olver, I, Yennu, S, et al. (2021) Optimal supportive care for patients with metastatic breast cancer according to their disease progression phase. JCO Oncology Practice 17(4), 177183. doi:10.1200/OP.20.00622CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuosmanen, L, Hupli, M, Ahtiluoto, S, et al. (2021) Patient participation in shared decision-making in palliative care - an integrative review. Journal of Clinical Nursing 30(23-24), 34153428. doi:10.1111/jocn.15866CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martí-García, C, Fernández-Férez, A, Fernández-Sola, C, et al. (2023) Patients’ experiences and perceptions of dignity in end-of-life care in emergency departments: A qualitative study. Journal of Advanced Nursing 79(1), 269280. doi:10.1111/jan.15432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathews, JJ, Hausner, D, Avery, J, et al. (2021) Impact of medical assistance in dying on palliative care: A qualitative study. Palliative Medicine 35(2), 447454. doi:10.1177/0269216320968517CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, SA, Kendall, M, Boyd, K, et al. (2005) Illness trajectories and palliative care. BMJ 330(7498), 10071011. doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7498.1007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pătru, E, Călina, DC, Pătru, CL, et al. (2014) The physician’s attitude towards the end of the existence. Current Health Sciences Journal 40(2), 134138. doi:10.12865/CHSJ.40.02.10Google ScholarPubMed
Pedrini Cruz, R (2022) Death with dignity: Are we providing adequate palliative care to cancer patients? European Journal of Cancer Care 31(6), . doi:10.1111/ecc.13512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radbruch, L, De Lima, L, Knaul, F, et al. (2020) Redefining palliative care-A new consensus-based definition. Journal of Pain Symptom Management 60(4), 754764. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rego, F and Nunes, R (2019) The interface between psychology and spirituality in palliative care. Journal of Health Psychology 24(3), 279287. doi:10.1177/1359105316664138CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhondali, W, Burt, S, Wittenberg-Lyles, E, et al. (2013) Medical oncologists’ perception of palliative care programs and the impact of name change to supportive care on communication with patients during the referral process. A qualitative study. Palliat Support Care 11(5), 397404. doi:10.1017/S1478951512000685CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robson, S and Craswell, A (2022) Experiences of emergency department nurses using palliative care resources and associated tools in the provision of quality care of a dying patient. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 28(10), 464472. doi:10.12968/ijpn.2022.28.10.464CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothschild, CB, Chaiyachati, BH, Finck, KR, et al. (2022) A Venn diagram of vulnerability: The convergence of pediatric palliative care and child maltreatment a narrative review, and a focus on communication. Child Abuse and Neglect 128, . doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos Neto, MFD, Paiva, CE, de Lima, C, et al. (2014) Oncology palliative care: Access barriers: Bibliometric study. BMJ Support Palliat Care 14, e250e259. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saretta, M, Doñate-Martínez, A and Alhambra-Borrás, T (2022) Barriers and facilitators for an effective palliative care communication with older people: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling 105(8), 26712682. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2022.04.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semenenko, E, Banerjee, S, Olver, I, et al. (2023) Review of psychological interventions in patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer 31(4), . doi:10.1007/s00520-023-07675-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strang, P (2022) Palliative oncology and palliative care. Molecular Oncology 16(19), 33993409. doi:10.1002/1878-0261.13278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temel, JS, Petrillo, LA and Greer, JA (2022) Patient-centered palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 40(6), 626634. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.01710CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tong, A, Sainsbury, P and Craig, J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19(6), 349357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trevizan, FB, Paiva, CE, de Almeida, LF, et al. (2023) When and how to discuss about palliative care and advance care planning with cancer patients: A mixed-methods study. Palliat Support Care 27, 19. doi:10.1017/S1478951523001517Google Scholar
Wake, AD (2022) Knowledge and associated factors towards palliative care among nurses in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sage Open Medicine 10, . doi:10.1177/20503121221092338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wantonoro, W, Suryaningsih, EK, Anita, DC, et al. (2022) Palliative care: A concept analysis review. SAGE Open Nursing 8, . doi:10.1177/23779608221117379CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the patients (N = 61)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Analysis of classification, occurrence and relationships of terms present in patients’ discourses and the interrelationship of terms. The proximity of lines indicates similarities, suggesting shared terms within the same speech, while greater distance signifies dispersed and isolated terms within speeches.

Note: Software: Iramuteq. (A.) Representation of the relationships between discourses per patient; (B.) Representation of the relationships between terms and their respective occurrences.
Figure 2

Figure 2. Analysis of similarities and relationships between patients’ narrative variables. The size of nodes corresponds to term frequency, and the line thickness indicates the strength of associations.

Note: Software: Iramuteq.
Figure 3

Figure 3. Graphic description of the questions, categories, and subcategories based on the participants’ statements.

Figure 4

Table 2. Are you familiar with the concepts of PC? What PC is all about?

Figure 5

Table 4. What approaches do you find most suitable for addressing PC?

Figure 6

Table 3. When would you consider the optimal timing for discussions regarding PC?

Figure 7

Figure 4. Representation by word cloud of the most frequent occurrences of answers to the questions.

Notes: A.: Are you familiar with the concepts of PC? What PC is all about?; B.: When would you consider the optimal timing for discussions regarding PC?; and C.: What approaches do you find most suitable for addressing PC?.