Person:

Prigerson, Holly

Background: Culture shapes how people understand illness and death, but few studies examine whether acculturation influences patients’ end-of-life treatment preferences and medical care. Methods and Findings: In this multi-site, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of terminally-ill cancer patients and their caregivers (n = 171 dyads), trained interviewers administered the United States Acculturation Scale (USAS). The USAS is a 19-item scale developed to assess the degree of “Americanization” in first generation or non-US born caregivers of terminally-ill cancer patients. We evaluated the internal consistency, concurrent, criterion, and content validity of the USAS. We also examined whether caregivers’ USAS scores predicted patients’ communication, treatment preferences, and end-of-life medical care in multivariable models that corrected for significant confounding influences (e.g. education, country of origin, English proficiency). The USAS measure was internally consistent (Cronbach α = 0.98); and significantly associated with US birthplace (r = 0.66, P<0.0001). USAS scores were predictive of patients’ preferences for prognostic information (AOR = 1.31, 95% CI:1.00–1.72), but not comfort asking physicians’ questions about care (AOR 1.23, 95% CI:0.87–1.73). They predicted patients’ preferences for feeding tubes (AOR = 0.68, 95% CI:0.49–0.99) and wish to avoid dying in an intensive care unit (AOR = 1.36, 95% CI:1.05–1.76). Scores indicating greater acculturation were also associated with increased odds of patient participation in clinical trials (AOR = 2.20, 95% CI:1.28–3.78), compared with lower USAS scores, and greater odds of patients receiving chemotherapy (AOR = 1.59, 95% CI:1.20–2.12). Conclusion: The USAS is a reliable and valid measure of “Americanization” associated with advanced cancer patients’ end-of-life preferences and care. USAS scores indicating greater caregiver acculturation were associated with increased odds of patient participation in cancer treatment (chemotherapy, clinical trials) compared with lower scores. Future studies should examine the effects of acculturation on end-of-life care to identify patient and provider factors that explain these effects and targets for future interventions to improve care (e.g., by designing more culturally-competent health education materials).

Purpose End-of-life (EOL) measures are limited in capturing caregiver assessment of the quality of EOL care. Because none include caregiver perception of patient suffering or prolongation of death, we sought to develop and validate the Caregiver Evaluation of Quality of End-of-Life Care (CEQUEL) scale to include these dimensions of caregiver-perceived quality of EOL care. Patients and Methods Data were derived from Coping with Cancer (CwC), a multisite, prospective, longitudinal study of advanced cancer patients and their caregivers (N = 275 dyads). Caregivers were assessed before and after patient deaths. CEQUEL's factor structure was examined; reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's α, and convergent validity by the strength of associations between CEQUEL scores and key EOL outcomes. Results: Factor analysis revealed four distinct factors: Prolongation of Death, Perceived Suffering, Shared Decision-Making, and Preparation for the Death. Each item loaded strongly on only a single factor. The 13-item CEQUEL and its subscales showed moderate to acceptable Cronbach's α (range: 0.52–0.78). 53% of caregivers reported patients suffering more than expected. Higher CEQUEL scores were positively associated with therapeutic alliance (ρ = .13; p≤.05) and hospice enrollment (z = −2.09; p≤.05), and negatively associated with bereaved caregiver regret (ρ = −.36, p≤.001) and a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (z = −2.06; p≤.05). Conclusion: CEQUEL is a brief, valid measure of quality of EOL care from the caregiver's perspective. It is the first scale to include perceived suffering and prolongation of death. If validated in future work, it may prove a useful quality indicator for the delivery of EOL care and a risk indicator for poor bereavement adjustment.

Background: Bereavement is a universal experience, and its association with excess morbidity and mortality is well established. Nevertheless, grief becomes a serious health concern for a relative few. For such individuals, intense grief persists, is distressing and disabling, and may meet criteria as a distinct mental disorder. At present, grief is not recognized as a mental disorder in the DSM-IV or ICD-10. The goal of this study was to determine the psychometric validity of criteria for prolonged grief disorder (PGD) to enhance the detection and potential treatment of bereaved individuals at heightened risk of persistent distress and dysfunction.
Methods and Findings: A total of 291 bereaved respondents were interviewed three times, grouped as 0–6, 6–12, and 12–24 mo post-loss. Item response theory (IRT) analyses derived the most informative, unbiased PGD symptoms. Combinatoric analyses identified the most sensitive and specific PGD algorithm that was then tested to evaluate its psychometric validity. Criteria require reactions to a significant loss that involve the experience of yearning (e.g., physical or emotional suffering as a result of the desired, but unfulfilled, reunion with the deceased) and at least five of the following nine symptoms experienced at least daily or to a disabling degree: feeling emotionally numb, stunned, or that life is meaningless; experiencing mistrust; bitterness over the loss; difficulty accepting the loss; identity confusion; avoidance of the reality of the loss; or difficulty moving on with life. Symptoms must be present at sufficiently high levels at least six mo from the death and be associated with functional impairment. Conclusions: The criteria set for PGD appear able to identify bereaved persons at heightened risk for enduring distress and dysfunction. The results support the psychometric validity of the criteria for PGD that we propose for inclusion in DSM-V and ICD-11.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that patients' end-of-life (EOL) care is determined primarily by the medical resources available, and not by patient preferences. The authors examined whether patients' desire for life-extending therapy was associated with their EOL care. METHODS: Coping with Cancer is a multisite, prospective, longitudinal study of patients with advanced cancer. Three hundred one patients were interviewed at baseline and followed until death, a median of 4.5 months later. Multivariate analyses examined the influence of patients' preferences and treatment site on whether patients received intensive care or hospice services in the final week of life. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 301 patients (27.6%) with advanced cancer wanted life-extending therapy at baseline. Patients who understood that their disease was terminal or who reported having EOL discussions with their physicians were less likely to want life-extending care compared with others (23.4% vs 42.6% and 20.7% vs 44.4%, respectively; P≤.003). Patients who were treated at Yale Cancer Center received more intensive care (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-8.47) and less hospice services (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.92) compared with patients who were treated at Parkland Hospital. However, in multivariate analyses that controlled for confounding influences, patients who preferred life-extending care were more likely to receive intensive care (adjusted OR [AOR], 2.91; 95% CI, 1.09-7.72) and were less likely to receive hospice services (AOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78). Treatment site was not identified as a significant predictor of EOL care. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment preferences of patients with advanced cancer may play a more important role in determining the intensity of medical care received at the EOL than previously recognized. Future research is needed to determine the mechanisms by which patients' preferences for care and treatment site interact to influence EOL care.