IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/nuhsci/v20y2018i4p472-478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decisional conflict in end‐of‐life cancer treatment among family surrogates: A cross‐sectional survey

Author

Listed:
  • Bo Min Jeon
  • Su Hyun Kim
  • Soo Jung Lee

Abstract

The aims of this study were to examine the extent of decisional conflict in end‐of‐life cancer treatments and to investigate the influences and predictors of decisional conflict among family surrogates. A cross‐sectional, descriptive, correlational design was applied. Data were collected from a convenience sample of 102 family members who had participated in end‐of‐life cancer decision‐making. We enrolled participants from inpatient oncology units at a university hospital in South Korea from May 2014 to January 2016. The results indicated that many family surrogates had high levels of decisional conflict and psychological stress after end‐of‐life cancer decision‐making. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses demonstrated that decisional conflict had significant, substantial influences on decision regret and psychological stress after controlling for demographic variables. Family surrogates who were aware of the patients' wishes about end‐of‐life treatments and those who had good family functioning had less decisional conflict. To relieve decisional conflict regarding end‐of‐life cancer treatment among family surrogates, it is necessary to encourage patients to share their end‐of‐life treatment wishes with family members and to consider family functioning in the end‐of‐life decision‐making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Bo Min Jeon & Su Hyun Kim & Soo Jung Lee, 2018. "Decisional conflict in end‐of‐life cancer treatment among family surrogates: A cross‐sectional survey," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 472-478, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:20:y:2018:i:4:p:472-478
    DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12537
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/nhs.12537?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holly O. Witteman & Laura D. Scherer & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Arwen H. Pieterse & Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Nicole Exe & Valerie C. Kahn & Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nananda F. Col & Ale, 2016. "Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 453-471, May.
    2. Kathrin Boerner & Deborah Carr & Sara Moorman, 2013. "Family Relationships and Advance Care Planning: Do Supportive and Critical Relations Encourage or Hinder Planning?," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 68(2), pages 246-256.
    3. Ronald L Hickman & Melissa D Pinto, 2014. "Advance directives lessen the decisional burden of surrogate decision‐making for the chronically critically ill," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5-6), pages 756-765, March.
    4. Anouk M. Knops & Astrid Goossens & Dirk T. Ubbink & Dink A. Legemate & Lukas J. Stalpers & Patrick M. Bossuyt, 2013. "Interpreting Patient Decisional Conflict Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 78-84, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura D. Scherer & Jeffrey T. Kullgren & Tanner Caverly & Aaron M. Scherer & Victoria A. Shaffer & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2018. "Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 708-718, August.
    2. Georgios Gerasimou, 2020. "The Decision-Conflict Logit," Papers 2008.04229, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    3. Carr, Deborah & Kalousova, Lucie & Lin, Katherine & Burgard, Sarah, 2021. "Occupational differences in advance care planning: Are medical professionals more likely to plan?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    4. Marieke G.M. Weernink & Janine A. van Til & Holly O. Witteman & Liana Fraenkel & Maarten J. IJzerman, 2018. "Individual Value Clarification Methods Based on Conjoint Analysis: A Systematic Review of Common Practice in Task Design, Statistical Analysis, and Presentation of Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 746-755, August.
    5. Nananda F. Col & Andrew J. Solomon & Vicky Springmann & Calvin P. Garbin & Carolina Ionete & Lori Pbert & Enrique Alvarez & Brenda Tierman & Ashli Hopson & Christen Kutz & Idanis Berrios Morales & Car, 2018. "Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 44-55, January.
    6. Chih-Chieh Yen & Cheng-Pei Lin & Yu-Ting Su & Chiu-Hua Tsu & Li-Mei Chang & Zih-Jie Sun & Bing-Sheng Lin & Jin-Shang Wu, 2021. "The Characteristics and Motivations of Taiwanese People toward Advance Care Planning in Outpatient Clinics at a Community Hospital," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-14, March.
    7. Shinae L. Choi & Deborah Carr, 2023. "Older Adults’ Relationship Trajectories and Estate Planning," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 356-372, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:20:y:2018:i:4:p:472-478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1442-2018 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.