Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Oct 8;300(14):1665-73.
doi: 10.1001/jama.300.14.1665.

Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment

Affiliations

Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment

Alexi A Wright et al. JAMA. .

Abstract

Context: Talking about death can be difficult. Without evidence that end-of-life discussions improve patient outcomes, physicians must balance their desire to honor patient autonomy against a concern of inflicting psychological harm.

Objective: To determine whether end-of-life discussions with physicians are associated with fewer aggressive interventions.

Design, setting, and participants: A US multisite, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients with advanced cancer and their informal caregivers (n = 332 dyads), September 2002-February 2008. Patients were followed up from enrollment to death, a median of 4.4 months later. Bereaved caregivers' psychiatric illness and quality of life was assessed a median of 6.5 months later.

Main outcome measures: Aggressive medical care (eg, ventilation, resuscitation) and hospice in the final week of life. Secondary outcomes included patients' mental health and caregivers' bereavement adjustment.

Results: One hundred twenty-three of 332 (37.0%) patients reported having end-of-life discussions before baseline. Such discussions were not associated with higher rates of major depressive disorder (8.3% vs 5.8%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-3.32), or more worry (mean McGill score, 6.5 vs 7.0; P = .19). After propensity-score weighted adjustment, end-of-life discussions were associated with lower rates of ventilation (1.6% vs 11.0%; adjusted OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83), resuscitation (0.8% vs 6.7%; adjusted OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.80), ICU admission (4.1% vs 12.4%; adjusted OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90), and earlier hospice enrollment (65.6% vs 44.5%; adjusted OR, 1.65;95% CI, 1.04-2.63). In adjusted analyses, more aggressive medical care was associated with worse patient quality of life (6.4 vs 4.6; F = 3.61, P = .01) and higher risk of major depressive disorder in bereaved caregivers (adjusted OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.12-10.13), whereas longer hospice stays were associated with better patient quality of life (mean score, 5.6 vs 6.9; F = 3.70, P = .01). Better patient quality of life was associated with better caregiver quality of life at follow-up (beta = .20; P = .001).

Conclusions: End-of-life discussions are associated with less aggressive medical care near death and earlier hospice referrals. Aggressive care is associated with worse patient quality of life and worse bereavement adjustment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results adjusted for illness severity, as measured by Karnofsky score and survival. Hospice length: 0=no hospice, 1=less than one week, 2=one to eight weeks, 3=more than eight weeks (F=4.04, df=3, p=0.008). Aggressive interventions: 0=none, 1=one intervention (ventilation, resuscitation, chemotherapy, or feeding tube), 2=two interventions, 3=three or more (F=3.61, df=3, p=0.01).

References

    1. Quill TE. Perspectives on care at the close of life. Initiating end-of-life discussions with seriously ill patients: addressing the “elephant in the room”. JAMA. 2000;284(19):2502–7. - PubMed
    1. Leydon GM, Boulton M, Moynihan C, et al. Cancer patients’ information needs and information seeking behavior: in depth interview study. BMJ. 2000;320(7239):909–13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hagerty RG, Butow PN, Ellis PA, et al. Cancer patient preferences for communication of prognosis in the metastatic setting. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(9):1721–30. - PubMed
    1. Baile WF, Lenzi R, Parker PA, Buckman R, Cohen L. Oncologists’ attitudes toward and practices in giving bad news: an exploratory study. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(8):2189–2196. - PubMed
    1. Gordon EJ, Daugherty CK. “Hitting you over the head”: Oncologists’ disclosure of prognosis to advanced cancer patients. Bioethics. 2003;17(2):142–168. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms