Cited by 52Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Understanding of Prognosis and Goals of Care Among Couples Whose Child Died of Cancer

Open access
Edwards, Kelly E., Neville, Bridget A., Cook, Earl F., Aldridge, Sarah H., Dussel, Veronica, Wolfe, Joanne·2008·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Little is known about how couples care for the terminally ill child with cancer. We assessed both parents’ understanding of prognosis and treatment goals for children with cancer and explored whether sex mediates these views. We also investigated whether discordance within couples regarding treatment goals was related to parental perception of the child's end-of-life (EOL) experience. Methods: We surveyed mothers and fathers of children who died of cancer and were cared for at Children's Hospital (Boston, MA) and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA) between 2000 and 2004. Our sample included 38 couples (response rate, 56%). Results: Willingness to participate did not differ by sex. At diagnosis, fathers and mothers held a similar understanding of the child's prognosis, and 58% of couples agreed on the goal of cure. During the EOL period, a majority of fathers and mothers reported lessening suffering as the primary goal. However, within couples there was poor agreement about the primary goal of care (κ = 0.07). When parents did not agree on the primary goal of lessening suffering, both parents were more likely to report that the child suffered significantly from cancer-directed treatment (P = .03). Conclusion: Though parent goals are often concurrent at diagnosis, they frequently differ during the EOL period. Parent disagreement about the goal of lessening suffering at the EOL appears to impact how parents describe their child's experience of suffering. Creating opportunities for parents to work through their goals together may lead to improvements in the child's EOL experience.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2007.13.4056

Cites

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?

  • Bereaved parents' perceptions of clear and compassionate communication are associated with excellent care and improved psychosocial outcomes.

    “Cross-sectional surveys with bereaved parents confirm that parent perceptions of clear and compassionate communication are associated with excellent care and improved psychosocial outcomes.[17,33–35]”

    From Palliative Care as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology (2015) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Introduction (page not specified) says parents whose children died of cancer associate excellent care with clear and compassionate communication. The paper does not report an association between perceptions of that communication and improved psychosocial outcomes; its reported outcomes concern parental agreement on care goals and perceptions of the child's suffering. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 52

Authors
Edwards, K. E., Neville, B. A., Cook, E. F., Aldridge, S. H., Dussel, V., & Wolfe, J.
Affiliations
  • From the Harvard Medical School; Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health; Department of Medicine, Children's Hospital; Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2008-03-10
Volume
26
Issue
8
Pages
1310-1315
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2106967002
Cited by
52
References
18
Citations by year
2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Charles H. Hood Foundation
  • U.S. Public Health Service (T32 HP 10018)
  • National Cancer Institute (K07CA096746)
Topics
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
childhood cancer, end-of-life care, prognosis understanding, goals of care, parental disagreement, couples, sex differences, suffering, parents of children with cancer
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude to Death, Boston, Child, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Data Collection, Decision Making, Family Characteristics, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Palliative Care, Parents, Physicians, Prognosis, Terminally Ill, Comprehension

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