Cited by 775Patient Dignity and PrivacyPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic Care

Effect of dignity therapy on distress and end-of-life experience in terminally ill patients: a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Chochinov, Harvey Max, Kristjanson, Linda J, Breitbart, William, McClement, Susan, Hack, Thomas F, Hassard, Tom, Harlos, Mike·2011·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Background Dignity therapy is a unique, individualised, short-term psychotherapy that was developed for patients (and their families) living with life-threatening or life-limiting illness. We investigated whether dignity therapy could mitigate distress or bolster the experience in patients nearing the end of their lives.Methods Patients (aged ≥18 years) with a terminal prognosis (life expectancy ≤6 months) who were receiving palliative care in a hospital or community setting (hospice or home) in Canada, USA, and Australia were randomly assigned to dignity therapy, client-centred care, or standard palliative care in a 1:1:1 ratio. Randomisation was by use of a computer-generated table of random numbers in blocks of 30. Allocation concealment was by use of opaque sealed envelopes. The primary outcomes--reductions in various dimensions of distress before and after completion of the study--were measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Spiritual Well-Being Scale, Patient Dignity Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, items from the Structured Interview for Symptoms and Concerns, Quality of Life Scale, and modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Secondary outcomes of self-reported end-of-life experiences were assessed in a survey that was undertaken after the completion of the study. Outcomes were assessed by research staff with whom the participant had no previous contact to avoid any possible response bias or contamination. Analyses were done on all patients with available data at baseline and at the end of the study intervention. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00133965.Findings 165 of 441 patients were assigned to dignity therapy, 140 standard palliative care, and 136 client-centred care. 108, 111, and 107 patients, respectively, were analysed. No significant differences were noted in the distress levels before and after completion of the study in the three groups. For the secondary outcomes, patients reported that dignity therapy was significantly more likely than the other two interventions to have been helpful (χ(2)=35·50, df=2; p<0·0001), improve quality of life (χ(2)=14·52; p=0·001), increase sense of dignity (χ(2)=12·66; p=0·002), change how their family saw and appreciated them (χ(2)=33·81; p<0·0001), and be helpful to their family (χ(2)=33·86; p<0·0001). Dignity therapy was significantly better than client-centred care in improving spiritual wellbeing (χ(2)=10·35; p=0·006), and was significantly better than standard palliative care in terms of lessening sadness or depression (χ(2)=9·38; p=0·009); significantly more patients who had received dignity therapy reported that the study group had been satisfactory, compared with those who received standard palliative care (χ(2)=29·58; p<0·0001).Interpretation Although the ability of dignity therapy to mitigate outright distress, such as depression, desire for death or suicidality, has yet to be proven, its benefits in terms of self-reported end-of-life experiences support its clinical application for patients nearing death.Funding National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70153-x

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 intervention was administered by the first author, who was trained in dignity therapy by Harvey Max Chochinov.

    “The intervention was administered by the first author as part of her PhD studies, who was trained in dignity therapy by Harvey Max Chochinov who developed dignity therapy [1,4].”

    From Feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of dignity therapy for family carers of people with motor neurone disease (2014) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Methods (Study Arm Descriptions; page not supplied) say that dignity therapists attended a training workshop led by HMC, Harvey Max Chochinov. The paper does not identify the citing document’s first author as one of those therapists or establish that she administered its intervention. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many interventions for adults with metastatic cancer are disconnected from the scientific evidence base on how to effectively reduce distress or change behavior.

    “Further, many interventions for adults with metastatic cancer (e.g., [14, 23]) are disconnected from the scientific evidence base on how to effectively reduce distress or change behavior.”

    From A randomized controlled trial of a multi-modal palliative care intervention to promote advance care planning and psychological well-being among adults with advanced cancer: study protocol. (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction identifies Dignity Therapy as an intervention for patients nearing death, supporting its use as an example of an intervention. But it says the therapy’s questions are based on an empirical model, and Research in Context describes a systematic review undertaken for the trial. The paper does not support characterizing this intervention as disconnected from the scientific evidence base, nor does it establish that many interventions for adults with metastatic cancer are. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many palliative care interventions address a single dimension of palliative care or focus on patients in general rather than anxious and depressed patients most in need of support.

    “Many palliative care interventions address a single dimension of palliative care – e.g., ACP directive completion or sense of life meaning – or focus on patients in general rather than the anxious and depressed patients most in need of support [5, 13–15].”

    From A randomized controlled trial of a multi-modal palliative care intervention to promote advance care planning and psychological well-being among adults with advanced cancer: study protocol. (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Discussion says palliative care should address multiple dimensions of distress, and the trial did not screen for a minimum level of distress; its participants were generally not markedly distressed (Results). This supports the concern about interventions studied in general patient groups, but the paper does not establish that many interventions address only one dimension or that anxious and depressed patients are most in need of support. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • None of the notable meaning-focused interventions for metastatic cancer patients directly target avoidance of internal experience.

    “Though notable meaning-focused interventions for metastatic cancer patients exist (e.g., [14, 15]), none directly target avoidance of internal experience [25]”

    From A randomized controlled trial of a multi-modal palliative care intervention to promote advance care planning and psychological well-being among adults with advanced cancer: study protocol. (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Methods (Study Arm Descriptions; page unavailable) describe Dignity Therapy as targeting meaning, purpose, identity, and dignity rather than avoidance of internal experience. This supports the claim for Dignity Therapy, but the paper does not establish that none of the other meaning-focused interventions directly target avoidance. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Dignity therapy was significantly better than client-centered care, but not standard palliative care, in improving spiritual well-being.

    “Dignity therapy was significantly better than client-centered care (but not standard palliative care) in improving spiritual well-being”

    From Psychosocial and Integrative Oncology: Interventions Across the Disease Trajectory. (2023) · cites this paper as Chochinov et al. 2011

    The Results (page not available) report that dignity therapy significantly outperformed one of the two other arms on a post-study survey question about improved spiritual well-being. Our copy does not identify that arm as client-centred care rather than standard palliative care. It also reports no significant differences between arms on the pre- and post-intervention measures. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [30]Tedeschi RG Calhoun LG Trauma and the Transformation of Suffering 1995 Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chochinov, H. M., Kristjanson, L. J., Breitbart, W., McClement, S., Hack, T. F., Hassard, T., & Harlos, M.
Affiliations
  • CancerCare Manitoba (CA)
  • Edith Cowan University (AU)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (CA)
Corresponding author
Chochinov, Harvey Max
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
753-762
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041265397
Cited by
775
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 112 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 32
FWCI
38.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Edith Cowan University Research Online (Edith Cowan University) (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
  • Canada Research Chairs
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA102201)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Dignity and Privacy
  • 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
Keywords
dignity therapy, terminal illness, end-of-life care, palliative care, distress, quality of life, sense of dignity, spiritual well-being, client-centred care, patient experience, symptom burden, anxiety and depression, patient-centered care
MeSH terms
Aged, Australia, Canada, Counseling, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Palliative Care, Psychotherapy, Brief, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, United States, Treatment Outcome, Terminally Ill

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