Cited by 30Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units

The Nature and Timing of Family-Provider Communication in Late-Stage Cancer: A Qualitative Study of Caregivers’ Experiences

Open access
Waldrop, Deborah P., Meeker, Mary Ann, Kerr, Christopher, Skretny, Judith, Tangeman, John, Milch, Robert·2012·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

Context Family members of people with advanced cancer can experience intensified distress and uncertainty during the final stages of their loved one's illness. Enhanced comprehension about disease progression, symptom management, and options for care can help families adapt, cope, and plan for the future. Objectives Guided by concepts from the Sense of Coherence Theory, which illuminates factors that contribute to adaptation in stressful situations, the objective of this study was to explore and describe family caregivers' accounts of the nature and timing of communication they had with a loved one's health care provider(s) during the advanced stages of cancer and before hospice enrollment. Methods Retrospective in-depth interviews were conducted with caregivers of 46 people who died of cancer. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and submitted to an iterative process of qualitative data analysis that included 1) systematic coding, 2) the use of data matrices to display summarized results and collapse the codes into themes, 3) and axial coding to characterize the nature of the themes. Results Overall, communication with providers was found to be either 1) satisfactory or 2) unsatisfactory. Satisfactory communication was 1) compassionate, 2) responsive, and/or 3) dedicated. Unsatisfactory communication was described as 1) sparse, 2) conflicted, 3) contradictory, and/or 4) brink of death. Conclusion Communication with health care providers is critical for helping family car…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.04.017

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waldrop, D. P., Meeker, M. A., Kerr, C., Skretny, J., Tangeman, J., & Milch, R.
Affiliations
University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Waldrop, Deborah P.
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-02
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
182-194
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965138401
Cited by
30
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
John A. Hartford Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Keywords
family caregivers, family-provider communication, advanced cancer, late-stage cancer, hospice care, sense of coherence, caregiver distress, symptom management, end-of-life care, caregiver experiences
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, New York, Stress, Psychological, Caregivers, Terminally Ill, Health Communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review