Cited by 27Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesNursing care and researchPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Caregiver-Reported Roles in Treatment Decision Making in Advanced Cancer and Associated Caregiving Burden and Psychological Distress: A Longitudinal Study

Ozdemir, Semra, Ng, Sean, Chaudhry, Isha, Teo, Irene, Malhotra, Chetna, Finkelstein, Eric Andrew, COMPASS Study Group·2023·Medical Decision Making

Abstract

Objective To longitudinally examine caregiver-reported treatment decision-making roles and to investigate the associations of these roles with caregiver burden, caregiving esteem, caregiver anxiety, and depression. Methods 281 caregivers of patients with stage IV solid cancers were recruited from outpatient clinics in Singapore. Caregivers were eligible if they were aged ≥21 y, primary informal caregiver, and involved in treatment decision making. We used 3 y of longitudinal data. The decision-making roles were grouped into 4 categories: no family involvement, patient/physician-led, joint, and family-led/alone decision making. Mixed-effects linear regressions were used to assess associations between decision-making roles and caregiver outcomes. Results On average, 72% of caregivers reported family involvement in decision making. Compared with baseline, a higher proportion of caregivers at the 36-mo follow-up reported no family involvement (from 23% to 34%, P = 0.05) and patient/physician-led decision making (from 22% to 34%, P = 0.02), while a lower proportion reported family-led/alone (from 19% to 7%, P = 0.01) decision making. Compared with family-led/alone decision making, caregivers reporting no family involvement reported lower impact on finances (-0.15 [-0.28, -0.01], P = 0.03) while caregivers who reported patient/physician-led decision making reported lower impact on schedule and health (-0.12 [-0.20, -0.03], P = 0.01), and finances (-0.15 [-0.28, -0.03], P = 0.02), a…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x221125408

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ozdemir, S., Ng, S., Chaudhry, I., Teo, I., Malhotra, C., Finkelstein, E. A., & COMPASS Study Group
Affiliations
  • Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
  • Duke-NUS Medical School (SG)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Published
2022-09-16
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
191-202
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
OpenAlex
W4296164279
Cited by
27
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3
FWCI
3.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Lien Centre for Palliative Care (LCPC-IN14-0003)
  • Singapore Millennium Foundation (2015-SMF-0003)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
family caregivers, treatment decision-making, advanced cancer, caregiver burden, psychological distress, caregiver anxiety, caregiver depression, family involvement in decision-making, shared decision-making, caregiver well-being
MeSH terms
Psychological Distress, Caregiver Burden, Decision Making, Depression, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Neoplasms, Stress, Psychological, Caregivers

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