Cited by 13Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEthics in medical practice

Differing Conceptualizations of the Goals of Care Discussion: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Open access
Myers, Jeff, Kim, Ginah L., Bytautas, Jessica, Webster, Fiona·2022·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

Context The goals of care discussion (GOCD) has been positioned as an improvement strategy to address discordance between care decisions made by seriously ill patients and care received. Interventions aimed at improving GOCDs however have had limited success. This may in part be due to the considerable variation in views on the essential components and expected outcomes of a GOCD. This variability, and consequently clinical approaches to GOCDs, may reflect fundamental differences in how the GOCD is conceptualized. Objective To identify and characterize differing conceptualizations of the GOCD. Methods Critical discourse analysis was used to qualitatively examine GOCDs documented for inpatients of 35 Canadian palliative medicine (PM), critical care medicine (CCM) and general internal medicine (GIM) physicians. Patterns in the ways the GOCD had been constructed were characterized by identifying different aspects of the approaches used by clinicians. Results GOCD notes varied in the predominant style and tone (from narrative to biomedical), predominant information source (patient/family to physician), and contribution of the patient's perspective. Notably binary differences were also found in the locus of goals and located either with the patient or with the broad concept of treatments. Although not exclusively, locus of goals tended to be with the patient among PM physicians and with treatments among CCM and GIM physicians. Conclusion These findings offer clinical evidence for differing conceptualizations of the GOCD and orientations to goals as either person-centered or treatment-centered. This phenomenon may be in part discipline-based and has important implications for both clinical practice and training experiences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.12.020

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The cost barrier of task-specific model development poses significant challenges for researchers interested in measuring multidimensional constructs whose definitions appropriately differ from study to study.

    “This cost barrier poses significant challenges for researchers interested in measuring multidimensional constructs for which definitions are likely to differ appropriately from study to study.37,38,35”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Myers, J., Kim, G. L., Bytautas, J., & Webster, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Myers, Jeff
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-04
Volume
63
Issue
4
Pages
495-502
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200527466
Cited by
13
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
Keywords
person-centred care, palliative medicine, intensive care, general internal medicine, patient perspectives
MeSH terms
Canada, Communication, Concept Formation, Decision Making, Humans, Inpatients, Patient Care Planning, Physicians

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