Patient, Caregiver, and Oncologist Predictions of Quality of Life in Advanced Cancer: Accuracy and Associations with End-of-Life Care and Caregiver Bereavement

Patient-Caregiver Dyads & End-of-Life Care: Caregiver Personality Disrupts Gender-Based Norms

CONTEXT

Gender and personality may individually impact end-of-life care. Men often receive more aggressive treatments than women near death, and personality - particularly openness - may be associated with increased care utilization when it diverges from traditional treatment norms. However, research has not examined the interaction of these variables in a dyadic context.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the dyadic effects of patient gender and caregiver personality on end-of-life care.

METHODS

Using data from the VOICE randomized clinical trial, the present sample consisted of patient-caregiver dyads receiving outpatient care for advanced cancer in Sacramento and Western New York. Analyses assessed whether caregiver personality was associated with gender-based differences in patient chemotherapy or emergency department/inpatient visits in the 30 days before death. Logistic regression examined the interaction between caregivers' Big Five personality dimensions and patient gender while accounting for patient and caregiver demographic and health characteristics.

RESULTS

Of a total of 134 patient-caregiver dyads, 19.4% (n = 26) of patients received chemotherapy and 47.8% (n = 64) had an emergency department/inpatient visit in the 30 days before death. Results demonstrated a significant interaction between caregiver openness and patient gender on receipt of chemotherapy (odds ratio = 0.07, p = 0.006). When caregivers were less open, men were more likely to receive chemotherapy near death, whereas when caregivers were more open, women were more likely to receive chemotherapy near death.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest caregiver personality characteristics, particularly openness, might disrupt gender-based treatment norms at end-of-life. Findings demonstrate that patient and caregiver factors can interact to explain patient healthcare utilization.

The TRIBE model: How socioemotional processes fuel end-of-life treatment in the United States

Prior interventions have repeatedly failed to decrease the prescription and receipt of treatments and procedures that confer more harm than benefit at the End-of-Life (EoL); new approaches to intervention are needed. Ideally, future interventions would be informed by a social-ecological conceptual model that explains EoL healthcare utilization patterns, but current models ignore two facts: (1) healthcare is an inherently social activity, involving clinical teams and patients' social networks, and (2) emotions influence social activity. To address these omissions, we scaffolded Terror Management Theory and Socioemotional Selectivity Theory to create the Transtheoretical Model of Irrational Biomedical Exuberance (TRIBE). Based on Terror Management Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of patient death motivates healthcare teams to conform to a biomedical norm of care, even when clinicians believe that biomedical interventions will likely be unhelpful. Based on Socioemotional Selectivity Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of dwindling time motivates families to prioritize emotional goals, and leads patients to consent to disease-directed treatments they know will likely be unhelpful, as moral emotions motivate deference to the perceived emotional needs of their loved ones. TRIBE is unique among models of healthcare utilization in its acknowledgement that moral emotions and processes (e.g., shame, compassion, regret-avoidance) influence healthcare delivery, patients' interactions with family members, and patients' outcomes. TRIBE is especially relevant to potentially harmful EoL care in the United States, and it also offers insights into the epidemics of overtreatment in healthcare settings worldwide. By outlining the role of socioemotional processes in the care of persons with serious conditions, TRIBE underscores the critical need for psychological innovation in interventions, health policy and research on healthcare utilization.