Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Attitudes and beliefs of palliative care physicians regarding communication with terminally ill cancer patients

Bruera, Eduardo, Neumann, Catherine M, Mazzocato, Claudia, Stiefel, Fritz, Sala, Raul·2000·Palliative Medicine

Abstract

The subject of communication between palliative care physicians and their patients regarding their diagnosis and prognosis has not been extensively researched. The purpose of this survey was to compare the attitudes and beliefs of palliative care specialists regarding communication with the terminally ill in Europe, South America, and Canada. A sample of palliative care physicians from South America (Argentina and Brazil), French-speaking Europe, and Canada were identified, and posted a questionnaire. Physicians who stated that they practised palliative care at least 30% of their time were considered evaluable as palliative care specialists. Of a total of 272 questionnaires, 228 were returned (84%); and 182/228 (81%) respondents were considered to be palliative care specialists. Palliative care physicians in all three regions believed that cancer patients should be informed of their diagnosis and the terminal nature of their illness. Physicians reported that at least 60% of their patients knew their diagnosis and the terminal stage of their illness in 52% and 24% of cases in South America, and 69% and 38% of cases in Europe, respectively. All physicians agreed that ‘do not resuscitate’ orders should be present, and should be discussed with the patient in all cases. While 93% of Canadian physicians stated that at least 60% of their patients wanted to know about the terminal stage of their illness, only 18% of South American, and 26% of European physicians said this (P < 0.001). Similar results were found when the physicians were asked the percentage of families who want patients to know the terminal stage of their illness. However, almost all of the physicians agreed that if they had terminal cancer they would like to know. There was a significant association between patient based decision-making and female sex (P = 0.007), older age (P = 0.04), and physicians from Canada and South America (P < 0.001). Finally, in their daily decision making, South American physicians were significantly more likely to support beneficence and justice as compared with autonomy. Canadian physicians were more likely to support autonomy as compared with beneficence. In summary, our findings suggest that there are major regional differences in the attitudes and beliefs of physicians regarding communication at the end of life. More research is badly needed on the attitudes and beliefs of patients, families, and health care professionals in different regions of the world.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/026921600674582192

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 174

Metadata

Authors
Bruera, E., Neumann, C. M., Mazzocato, C., Stiefel, F., & Sala, R.
Venue
Palliative Medicine
Published
2000-06
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
287-298
ISSN
  • 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-030X
OpenAlex
W2138916575
Cited by
174
References
0
FWCI
7.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Attitudes and beliefs of palliative care physicians regarding communication with terminally ill cancer patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1191/026921600674582192
The paper
Bruera, E., Neumann, C. M., Mazzocato, C., Stiefel, F., & Sala, R. (2000). Attitudes and beliefs of palliative care physicians regarding communication with terminally ill cancer patients. Palliative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921600674582192

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.