Development and evaluation of the Dignity Talk question framework for palliative patients and their families: A mixed-methods study

被引:33
作者
Guo, Qiaohong [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chochinov, Harvey Max [2 ,3 ]
McClement, Susan [2 ,4 ]
Thompson, Genevieve [2 ,4 ]
Hack, Tom [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Capital Med Univ, Sch Nursing, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] CancerCare Manitoba, Manitoba Palliat Care Res Unit, 3017-675 McDermot Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0V9, Canada
[3] Univ Manitoba, Rady Fac Hlth Sci, Dept Psychiat, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[4] Univ Manitoba, Rady Fac Hlth Sci, Coll Nursing, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[5] Univ Cent Lancashire, Preston, Lancs, England
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
Dignity talk; palliative care; palliative patients; family members; communication; mixed methods; OF-LIFE CARE; ADVANCED CANCER; PROMPT SHEET; END; COMMUNICATION; CAREGIVERS; CONSULTATION; LIST; PARTICIPATION; INTERVENTION;
D O I
10.1177/0269216317734696
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Effective patient-family communication can reduce patients' psychosocial distress and relieve family members' current suffering and their subsequent grief. However, terminally ill patients and their family members often experience great difficulty in communicating their true feelings, concerns, and needs to each other. Aim: To develop a novel means of facilitating meaningful conversations for palliative patients and family members, coined Dignity Talk, explore anticipated benefits and challenges of using Dignity Talk, and solicit suggestions for protocol improvement. Design: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design. Dignity Talk, a self-administered question list, was designed to prompt end-of-life conversations, adapted from the Dignity Therapy question framework. Participants were surveyed to evaluate the Dignity Talk question framework. Data were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Setting/participants: A total of 20 palliative patients, 20 family members, and 34 healthcare providers were recruited from two inpatient palliative care units in Winnipeg, Canada. Results: Most Dignity Talk questions were endorsed by the majority of patients and families (>70%). Dignity Talk was revised to be convenient and flexible to use, broadly accessible, clearly stated, and sensitively worded. Participants felt Dignity Talk would be valuable in promoting conversations, enhancing family connections and relationships, enhancing patient sense of value and dignity, promoting effective interaction, and attending to unfinished business. Participants suggested that patients and family members be given latitude to respond only to questions that are meaningful to them and within their emotional capacity to broach. Conclusion: Dignity Talk may provide a gentle means of facilitating important end-of-life conversations.
引用
收藏
页码:195 / 205
页数:11
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   Development of a theoretical framework describing relatives' involvement in palliative care [J].
Andershed, B ;
Ternestedt, BM .
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2001, 34 (04) :554-562
[2]   Development of the Serious Illness Care Program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention [J].
Bernacki, Rachelle ;
Hutchings, Mathilde ;
Vick, Judith ;
Smith, Grant ;
Paladino, Joanna ;
Lipsitz, Stuart ;
Gawande, Atul A. ;
Block, Susan D. .
BMJ OPEN, 2015, 5 (10)
[3]   End of life care in CF: Patients, families and staff experiences and unmet needs [J].
Braithwaite, Maxine ;
Philip, Jennifer ;
Tranberg, Heidi ;
Finlayson, Felicity ;
Gold, Michelle ;
Kotsimbos, Tom ;
Wilson, John .
JOURNAL OF CYSTIC FIBROSIS, 2011, 10 (04) :253-257
[4]   Promoting patient participation in the cancer consultation: evaluation of a prompt sheet and coaching in question asking [J].
Brown, R ;
Butow, PN ;
Boyer, MJ ;
Tattersall, MHN .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1999, 80 (1-2) :242-248
[5]   Promoting patient participation and shortening cancer consultations: a randomised trial [J].
Brown, RF ;
Butow, P ;
Dunn, SM ;
Tattersall, MHN .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2001, 85 (09) :1273-1279
[6]   Breast cancer patient perception of the helpfulness of a prompt sheet versus a general information sheet during outpatient consultation: A randomized, controlled trial [J].
Bruera, E ;
Sweeney, C ;
Willey, J ;
Palmer, JL ;
Tolley, S ;
Rosales, M ;
Ripamonti, C .
JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2003, 25 (05) :412-419
[7]   Cancer consultation preparation package: Changing patients but not physicians is not enough [J].
Butow, P ;
Devine, R ;
Boyer, M ;
Pendlebury, S ;
Jackson, M ;
Tattersall, MHN .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2004, 22 (21) :4401-4409
[8]   PATIENT PARTICIPATION IN THE CANCER CONSULTATION - EVALUATION OF A QUESTION PROMPT SHEET [J].
BUTOW, PN ;
DUNN, SM ;
TATTERSALL, MHN ;
JONES, QJ .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 1994, 5 (03) :199-204
[9]   The Landscape of Distress in the Terminally Ill [J].
Chochinov, Harvey Max ;
Hassard, Thomas ;
McClement, Susan ;
Hack, Thomas ;
Kristjanson, Linda J. ;
Harlos, Mike ;
Sinclair, Shane ;
Murray, Alison .
JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2009, 38 (05) :641-649
[10]   Dying, dignity, and new horizons in palliative end-of-life care [J].
Chochinov, HM .
CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2006, 56 (02) :84-103