Family-centered advance care planning for teens with cancer
ICU Decision Making
IMPORTANCE Advance care planning (ACP) prepares patients and their families for future health care decisions; however, the needs of adolescent oncology patients for participation in ACP have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE To examine the efficacy of family-centered ACP. DESIGN AND SETTING Two-group randomized controlled trial in a pediatric oncology program. PARTICIPANTS Sixty adolescents aged 14 to 21 years with cancer and their surrogates or families were enrolled in the study between January 17, 2011, and March 29, 2012. INTERVENTION Thirty dyads received 3- to 60-minute sessions 1 week apart. Intervention dyads completed (1) the Lyon Family-Centered ACP Survey, (2) the Respecting Choices interview, and (3) Five Wishes. Control subjects received standard care plus information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Statement of treatment preferences and Decisional Conflict Scale score. RESULTS The mean age of the adolescents was 16 years; 36 (60%) were male, 30 (50%) white, 26 (43%) black, and 4 (7%) Asian. Diagnoses were as follows: leukemia (14 patients [47%]), brain tumor (8 [27%]), solid tumor (6 [20%]), and lymphoma (2 [7%]). Significantly increased congruence was observed for intervention dyads compared with controls for 4 of the 6 disease-specific scenarios; for example, for situation 2 ("treatment would extend my life by not more than 2 to 3 months"), intervention dyads demonstrated higher congruence (kappa = 0.660; P < .001) vs control dyads (kappa = -0.0636; P = .70). Intervention adolescents (100%) wanted their families to do what is best at the time, whereas fewer control adolescents (62%) gave families this leeway. Intervention adolescents were significantly better informed about end-of-life decisions (t = 2.93; effect size, 0.961; 95% CI, 0.742-1.180; P = .007). Intervention families were more likely to concur on limiting treatments than controls. An ethnic difference was found in only one situation. CONCLUSIONS Advance care planning enabled families to understand and honor their adolescents' wishes. Intervention dyads were more likely than controls to limit treatments. Underserved African American families were willing to participate.
Lyon ME; Jacobs S; Briggs L; Cheng YI; Wang J
Jama Pediatrics
2013
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
Journal Article
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.943" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.943</a>
Pediatric Advance Care Planning and Families' Positive Caregiving Appraisals: An RCT
advance care planning; Caregiver Attitudes; hospice and palliative medicine; oncology; psychiatry; psychology
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Little is known about how families respond to pediatric advance care planning. Physicians are concerned that initiating pediatric advance care planning conversations with families is too distressing for families. We examined the effect of family centered pediatric advance care planning intervention for teens with cancer (FACE-TC) advance care planning on families' appraisals of their caregiving, distress, and strain. METHODS: In a randomized clinical trial with adolescents with cancer and their families conducted from July 2016 to April 2019 in 4 tertiary pediatric hospitals, adolescents and family dyads were randomly assigned at a 2:1 intervention/control ratio to either the 3 weekly sessions of FACE-TC (Advance Care Planning Survey; Next Steps: Respecting Choices; Five Wishes) or treatment-as-usual. Only the family member was included in this study. Generalized estimating equations assessed the intervention effect measured by Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire. RESULTS: Families' (n = 126) mean age was 46 years; 83% were female, and 82% were white. FACE-TC families significantly increased positive caregiving appraisals at 3-months postintervention, compared with those in the control group (β = .35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19 to 0.36; P = .03). No significant differences were found between groups for strain (β = -.14; 95% CI = -0.42 to 0.15; P = .35) or distress (β = -.01; CI = -0.35 to 0.32; P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: Families benefited from participation in FACE-TC, which resulted in positive appraisals of their caregiving for their child with cancer, while not significantly burdening them with distress or strain. Clinicians can be assured of the tolerability of this family-supported model.
Thompkins JD; Needle J; Baker JN; Briggs L; Cheng YI; Wang J; Friebert S; Lyon ME
Pediatrics
2021
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-029330" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1542/peds.2020-029330</a>