4.7 Article

Lung cancer physicians' referral practices for palliative care consultation

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 382-387

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr345

Keywords

lung cancer; palliative care; physician; survey

Categories

Funding

  1. American Cancer Society [PEP2-114269, RSGT-07-162-01-CPHPS]
  2. National Institute on Aging [AG034234]
  3. National Cancer Institute [R01CA131348]
  4. GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Integration of palliative care with standard oncologic care improves quality of life and survival of lung cancer patients. We surveyed physicians to identify factors influencing their decisions for referral to palliative care. Methods: We provided a self-administered questionnaire to physicians caring for lung cancer patients at five medical centers. The questionnaire asked about practices and views with respect to palliative care referral. We used multiple regression analysis to identify predictors of low referral rates (<25%). Results: Of 155 physicians who returned survey responses, 75 (48%) reported referring <25% of patients for palliative care consultation. Multivariate analysis, controlling for provider characteristics, found that low referral rates were associated with physicians' concerns that palliative care referral would alarm patients and families [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.98], while the belief that palliative care specialists have more time to discuss complex issues (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.56-6.02) was associated with higher rates of referral. Conclusions: Although palliative care consultation is increasingly available and recommended throughout the trajectory of lung cancer, our data indicate it is underutilized. Understanding factors influencing decisions to refer can be used to improve integration of palliative care as part of lung cancer management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available