Perceived Barriers to Goals of Care Discussions With Patients With Advanced Cancer and Their Families in the Ambulatory Setting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Earlier goals of care (GOC) discussions in patients with advanced cancer are associated with less aggressive end-of-life care including decreased use of medical technologies. Unfortunately, conversations often occur late in the disease trajectory when patients are acutely unwell. Here, we evaluate practitioner perspectives of patient, family, physician, and external barriers to early GOC discussions in the ambulatory oncology setting. METHODS: A previously published survey to assess barriers to GOC discussions among clinicians on inpatient medical wards was modified for the ambulatory oncology setting and distributed to oncologists from 12 centers in Ontario, Canada. Physicians were asked to rank the importance of various barriers to having GOC discussions (1 = extremely unimportant to 7 = extremely important). RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 30 (24%) of 127 physicians. Respondents perceived patient- and family-related factors as the most important barriers to GOC discussions. Of these, patient difficulty accepting prognosis or desire for aggressive treatment were perceived as most important. Patients' inflated expectation of treatment benefit was also considered an important barrier to discontinuing active cancer-directed therapy. While physician barriers were ranked lower than patient-related factors, clinicians' self-identified difficulty estimating prognosis and uncertainty regarding treatment benefits were also considered important. Patient's refusal for referral was the most highly rated barrier to early palliative care referral. Most respondents were nonetheless very or extremely willing to initiate (90%) or lead (87%) GOC discussions. CONCLUSION: Oncologists ranked patient- and family-related factors as the most important barriers to GOC discussions, while clinicians' self-identified difficulty estimating prognosis and uncertainty regarding treatment benefits were also considered important. Further work is required to assess patient preferences and perceptions and develop targeted interventions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it