↓ Skip to main content

Advanced cancer patients’ reported wishes at the end of life: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 5,097)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
198 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
Title
Advanced cancer patients’ reported wishes at the end of life: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00520-016-3260-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marvin O. Delgado-Guay, Alfredo Rodriguez-Nunez, Vera De la Cruz, Susan Frisbee-Hume, Janet Williams, Jimin Wu, Diane Liu, Michael J. Fisch, Eduardo Bruera

Abstract

Conversations about end-of-life (EOL) wishes are challenging for many clinicians. The Go Wish card game (GWG) was developed to facilitate these conversations. Little is known about the type and consistency of EOL wishes using the GWG in advanced cancer patients. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the EOL wishes of 100 patients with advanced cancer treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The purpose of this study was to determine the EOL wishes of patients with advanced cancer and to compare patients' preference between the GWG and List of wishes/statements (LOS) containing the same number of items. Patients were randomized into four groups and completed either the GWG or a checklist of 35 LOS and one opened statement found on the GWG cards; patients were asked to categorize these wishes as very, somewhat, or not important. After 4-24 h, the patients were asked to complete the same or other test. Group A (n = 25) received LOS-LOS, group B (n = 25) received GWG-GWG, group C (n = 26) received GWG-LOS, and group D (n = 24) received LOS-GWG. All patients completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) for adults before and after the first test. Median age (interquartile range = IQR): 56 (27-83) years. Age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, religion, education, and cancer diagnosis did not differ significantly among the four groups. All patients were able to complete the GWG and/or LOS. The ten most common wishes identified as very important by patients in the first and second test were to be at peace with God (74 vs. 71 %); to pray (62 vs. 61 %); and to have family present (57 vs. 61 %). to be free from pain (54 vs. 60 %); not being a burden to my family (48 vs. 49 %); to trust my doctor (44 vs. 45 %); to keep my sense of humor (41 vs. 45 %); to say goodbye to important people in my life (41 vs. 37 %); to have my family prepared for my death (40 vs. 49 %); and to be able to help others (36 vs. 31 %). There was significant association among the frequency of responses of the study groups. Of the 50 patients exposed to both tests, 43 (86 %) agreed that the GWG instructions were clear, 45 (90 %) agreed that the GWG was easy to understand, 31 (62 %) preferred the GWG, 39 (78 %) agreed that the GWG did not increase their anxiety and 31 (62 %) agreed that having conversations about EOL priorities was beneficial. The median STAI score after GWG was 48 (interquartile range, 39-59) vs. 47 (interquartile range, 27-63) after LOS (p = 0.2952). Patients with advanced cancer assigned high importance to spirituality and the presence/relationships of family, and these wishes were consistent over the two tests. The GWG did not worsen anxiety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 198 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 163 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Other 7 4%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 52 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 20%
Psychology 13 8%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 50 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 134. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2022.
All research outputs
#311,896
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#12
of 5,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,766
of 319,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,097 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.