Attitudes and beliefs of palliative care physicians regarding communication with terminally ill cancer patients
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".