The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What do patients receiving palliative care for cancer and their families want to be told? A Canadian and Australian qualitative study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To obtain feedback from patients receiving palliative care and their relatives from various ethnic backgrounds about their experiences of the disclosure process and their satisfaction with information sharing during the illness. DESIGN: A qualitative study with semistructured single interviews. SETTING: Perth, Western Australia, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 72 participants registered with palliative care: 21 patient-family dyads in Perth and 14 dyads and 2 patients in Winnipeg. RESULTS: Participants described their experiences in great detail. The analysis indicates that in information sharing the process is as important as the content. The timing, management, and delivery of information and perceived attitude of practitioners were critical to the process. This applied to information interactions at all stages of the illness. Main content areas mentioned related to prognosis and hope. Hope can be conveyed in different ways. Secondary information from various sources is accessed and synthesised with the primary information. All patients, regardless of origin, wanted information about their illness and wanted it fully shared with relatives. Almost all patients requested prognostic information, and all family members respected their wishes. Information was perceived as important for patient-family communication. Information needs of patient and family changed and diverged as illness progressed, and communication between them became less verbally explicit. CONCLUSIONS: Information delivery for patients needs to be individualised with particular attention to process at all stages of illness. Patients and families use secondary sources of information to complement and verify information given by health carers.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Cited by
Advanced cancer patients’ prognostic information preferences: a review
Innes, S., & Payne, S. (2009) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216308098799 · Cited by 331
The Role of Chemotherapy at the End of Life: “When Is Enough, Enough?”
Harrington, S. E., & Smith, T. J. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.22.2667 · Cited by 280
Predicting survival in patients with advanced disease
Glare, P., Sinclair, C., Downing, M., Stone, P., Maltoni, M., & Vigano, A. (2008) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.030 · Cited by 277
Mack, J. W., Nilsson, M., Balboni, T., Friedlander, R. J., Block, S. D., Trice, E., & Prigerson, H. G. (2008) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.23476 · Cited by 155
(2010) · PubMed · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirk, P., Kirk, I., & Kristjanson, L. J.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-05-19
- Volume
- 328
- Issue
- 7452
- Pages
- 1343
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2156096800
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What do patients receiving palliative care for cancer and their families want to be told? A Canadian and Australian qualitative study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38103.423576.55
- The paper
- Kirk, P., Kirk, I., & Kristjanson, L. J. (2004). What do patients receiving palliative care for cancer and their families want to be told? A Canadian and Australian qualitative study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38103.423576.55
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.