Cancer as the "perfect storm"? A qualitative study of public attitudes to health conditions

Consequences of a Diagnostic Label: A Systematic Scoping Review and Thematic Framework

Objectives: To develop a thematic framework for the range of consequences arising from a diagnostic label from an individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, and community perspective.

Design: Systematic scoping review of qualitative studies.

Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and CINAHL for primary studies and syntheses of primary studies that explore the consequences of labelling non-cancer diagnoses. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and forward citation searches undertaken.

Study Selection: We included peer reviewed publications describing the perceived consequences for individuals labelled with a non-cancer diagnostic label from four perspectives: that of the individual, their family/caregiver, healthcare professional and/or community members. We excluded studies using hypothetical scenarios.

Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction used a three-staged process: one third was used to develop a preliminary framework, the next third for framework validation, and the final third coded if thematic saturation was not achieved. Author themes and supporting quotes were extracted, and analysed from the perspective of individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, or community member.

Results: After deduplication, searches identified 7,379 unique articles. Following screening, 146 articles, consisting of 128 primary studies and 18 reviews, were included. The developed framework consisted of five overarching themes relevant to the four perspectives: psychosocial impact (e.g., positive/negative psychological impact, social- and self-identity, stigma), support (e.g., increased, decreased, relationship changes, professional interactions), future planning (e.g., action and uncertainty), behaviour (e.g., beneficial or detrimental modifications), and treatment expectations (e.g., positive/negative experiences). Perspectives of individuals were most frequently reported.

Conclusions: This review developed and validated a framework of five domains of consequences following diagnostic labelling. Further research is required to test the external validity and acceptability of the framework for individuals and their family/caregiver, healthcare professionals, and community.

What Aspects of Illness Influence Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK

BACKGROUND

Decisions on funding new healthcare technologies assume that all health improvements are valued equally. However, public reaction to health technology assessment (HTA) decisions suggests there are health attributes that matter deeply to them but are not currently accounted for in the assessment process. We aimed to determine the relative importance of attributes of illness that influence the value placed on alleviating that illness.

METHOD

We conducted a discrete choice experiment survey that presented general public respondents with 15 funding decisions between hypothetical health conditions. The conditions were defined by five attributes that characterise serious illnesses, plus the health gain from treatment. Respondent preferences were modelled using conditional logistic regression and latent class analysis.

RESULTS

905 members of the UK public completed the survey in November 2017. Respondents generally preferred to provide treatments for conditions with 'better' characteristics. The exception was treatment availability, where respondents preferred to provide treatments for conditions where there is no current treatment, and were prepared to accept lower overall health gain to do so. A subgroup of respondents preferred to prioritise 'worse' health states.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests a preference among the UK public for treating an unmet need; however, it does not suggest a preference for prioritising other distressing aspects of health conditions, such as limited life expectancy, or where patients are reliant on care. Our results are not consistent with the features currently prioritised in UK HTA processes, and the preference heterogeneity we identify presents a major challenge for developing broadly acceptable policy.

Patient-Reported Receipt of Goal-Concordant Care Among Seriously Ill Outpatients-Prevalence and Associated Factors

CONTEXT

Goal-concordant care is an important indicator of high-quality care in serious illness.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence of patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care among seriously ill outpatients and identify factors associated with the absence of patient-reported goal concordance.

METHODS

Analysis of enrollment surveys from a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness. Patients reported their prioritized health care goal and the focus of their current medical care; these items were matched to define receipt of goal-concordant care.

RESULTS

Of 405 patients with a prioritized health care goal, 58% reported receipt of goal-concordant care, 17% goal-discordant care, and 25% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patient-reported receipt of goal concordance differed by patient goal. For patients who prioritized extending life, 86% reported goal-concordant care, 2% goal-discordant care, and 12% were uncertain of the focus of their care. For patients who prioritized relief of pain and discomfort, 51% reported goal-concordant care, 21% goal-discordant care, and 28% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patients who prioritized a goal of relief of pain and discomfort were more likely to report goal-discordant care than patients who prioritized a goal of extending life (relative risk ratio 22.20; 95% CI 4.59, 107.38).

CONCLUSION

Seriously ill outpatients who prioritize a goal of relief of pain and discomfort are less likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who prioritize extending life. Future interventions designed to improve receipt of goal-concordant care should focus on identifying patients who prioritize relief of pain and discomfort and promoting care aligned with that goal.

Cancer as the "perfect storm"? A qualitative study of public attitudes to health conditions

Aims

Our aim is to identify important attributes of major diseases that shape how they are perceived by the public.

Methods and Results

Four focus groups among members of the public were recruited, in March and October 2016, and used semistructured discussion to explore important attributes of cancer, heart disease, stroke, dementia, mental illness, and infectious disease. Common themes were identified by using inductive thematic analysis.Five themes were identified: fear, impact on family and friends, hope, detection, and prevention. Fear of cancer includes not only fear of death but also of aggressive treatments. Loss of dignity is feared in dementia, while infectious disease raises fear of uncontrollable "plague"; in contrast, people with mental illness may themselves be seen as a potential threat. The impact of cancer and its treatment on family and friends was described as intense and all-consuming, even for those not involved directly in caring; with dementia and stroke, the family impact is taking on care, including funding, over the long term with little expectation of improvement. Hope is a major theme in cancer and stroke recovery, linked with the need to take action, often expressed in aggressive language of "fighting," but seen as futile in dementia. Detection difficulties for "silent" cancers mean that real treatment opportunities are missed; cardiovascular and infection risk, however, are seen as easy to identify and act on, whereas mental illness and dementia are seen as poorly diagnosed and with limited treatment options. Prevention awareness is high for cardiovascular disease and infection, lower for cancer, and limited for dementia and mental health.

Conclusion

Although themes overlap across diseases, the specific concerns are different and each condition has a unique profile. Quantifying the relative importance of these themes could allow their incorporation in decision-making, not only when they occur as a named disease but also in any relevant condition.