Feasibility of Educating Stem Cell Transplant Patients on Advance Care Planning: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic cell transplants (HCT) experience a high symptom burden, suffer from diminished quality of life, and often receive aggressive care at the end of life. Low completion rates of advance directives (ADs) regarding preferences for end-of-life care in this population are also common. Our study aims to examine the feasibility of a timely educational intervention about an online AD (i.e., OurCareWishes.org; OCW) for patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation. We also seek to ascertain whether this educational intervention impacts patients' decisional conflict regarding transplant and quality of life. Methods Patients scheduled for HCT were recruited and randomized to receive either in-person guided education about OCW (i.e., intervention) or standard AD information (i.e., usual care) 3-4 weeks prior to hospital admission for transplantation. Patients receiving the educational intervention were offered the opportunity to specify their preferences for life-sustaining or comfort-oriented care using vignettes and ultimately complete two components of online AD (e.g., health care proxy and living will). All patients received in-person follow-ups during their transplant and 2 months post-transplant appointments, during which patients who had received the educational intervention were re-approached about completing the online AD. Patients indicating a previously completed AD were offered the opportunity to review. At all three time points, patients were surveyed on their (1) decisional conflict regarding transplant using Decision Conflict Scale (DCS, 16-item, Range 0-60) and their (2) overall quality of life using McGill Quality of Life (MQoL) scale (16-item, Range 1-7). Greater DCS and MQoL scores represent greater decision conflict and better quality of life, respectively. We conducted a one-way repeated measures ANOVA to examine the effect of the educational AD intervention on decisional outcomes and quality of life. Results A total of 96 patients (98% Recruitment Rate) consented to participate and were randomized to receive either OCW (n=47) or standard AD information (n=49). They underwent either autologous (n=29), allogeneic reduced intensity (n=29), or allogeneic myeloablative (n=38) HCT. Most patients were male (n=57; 61%) and White (n=85; 89%). The median age was 59 (IQR=49.5-65.5) years (Table 1). There were no differences between intervention and usual care groups in their rating for overall quality of life and decisional conflict at all three timepoints (all p>0.05). 48% of patients (n=49) self-reported to have completed an AD prior this study, but only 43% (n=21) had a current AD uploaded to the EHR. Moreover, less than 6% of patients who received the OCW intervention fully completed the online AD. Conclusions This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of administering a brief educational intervention on advance care planning (ACP) in patients with hematologic malignancies preparing for HCT. Participants in this study were generally receptive to discussions about advance care planning, even when presented by non-clinical staff. Education about advance directives does not appear to negatively affect decisional outcomes or quality of life. Nonetheless, further research should focus on how to increase AD completion rates, possibly through multidisciplinary team engagement in serious illness conversations and coordinated physician/patient incentives. Future studies should examine the impact of education of AD on aggressiveness of care and end-of-life outcomes in patients undergoing HCT. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".