Spirituality and end-of-life care in disadvantaged men dying of prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer and Spirituality: A Systematic Review

The diagnosis, treatment, and sequels of cancer are relevant sources of stress, conflicts, and suffering, but spirituality may be a positive coping element. However, studies involving the correlation between prostate cancer patients and spirituality are few and heterogeneous. MEDLINE (PUBMED), SCOPUS, and EMBASE were the databases used for this review with the keywords "spirituality," "religion," and "prostate cancer." The review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. About 250 articles were found, and 30 were eligible. Most studies (N = 26; 86.6%) reported the relationship between spirituality and better health findings such as 80% being positively associated with more screening for prostate cancer and better patients' quality of life. More interventional, randomized, and multicentric trials are needed to clarify this relationship.

Relationship Between Religion/Spirituality and the Aggressiveness of Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

CONTEXT

Religiosity/spirituality/religious-spiritual coping (RS) are resources used by cancer patients with cancer to help cope with the disease and may influence the preference and receipt of end-of-life (EOL) treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relationship between RS and the EOL care preferred or received by cancer patients.

METHODS

This review protocol is registered on (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review, CRD42021251833) and follows the recommendations of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses checklist. Embase, Proquest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were consulted. Google Scholar was consulted for additional publications and gray literature. Quantitative studies including adults with any cancer type/stage were eligible. The paper selection was performed by two independent reviewers; the methodological quality was measured using the Newcastle Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included in the review. In general, RS is related to the preference or receipt of aggressive EOL care and with less advance care planning. Spiritual care by the medical team is related to higher referral to hospice and less aggressive care; in contrast, high spiritual support from religious communities is associated with less hospice and more aggressive care. Religious denominations influenced health care preferences, as Catholics were less likely to sign a do-not-resuscitate order and Buddhists or Taoists received more aggressive interventions at the EOL. Most studies (70%) were of high quality according to the Newcastle Ottawa scale.

CONCLUSION

RS is associated with more aggressive EOL treatments, as well as with lower rates of ACP in cancer patients. On the other hand, spiritual care provided by the medical team seems to be associated with less aggressive EOL care.

The Influence of Patient and Provider Religious and Spiritual Beliefs on Treatment Decision Making in the Cancer Care Context

BACKGROUND

Providers often underestimate the influence of patient religious and spiritual (R&S) needs. The current study sought to determine the influence of R&S beliefs on treatment decision making among patients and providers in the context of cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature using web-based search engines and discipline-specific databases. Search terms included a combination of the following Medical Subject Headings and key terms: "cancer,""spirituality,""religion," and "decision making." We used Covidence to screen relevant studies and extracted data into Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Among 311 screened studies, 32 met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most studies evaluated the patient perspective (n = 29), while 2 studies evaluated the provider perspective and 1 study examined both. In assessing patient R&S relative to treatment decision making, we thematically characterized articles according to decision-making contexts, including general (n = 11), end-of-life/advance care planning (n = 13), and other: specific (n = 8). Specific contexts included, but were not limited to, clinical trial participation (n = 2) and use of complementary and alternative medicine (n = 4). Within end-of-life/advance care planning, there was a discrepancy regarding how R&S influenced treatment decision making. The influence of R&S on general treatment decision making was both active and passive, with some patients wanting more direct integration of their R&S beliefs in treatment decision making. In contrast, other patients were less aware of indirect R&S influences. Patient perception of the impact of R&S on treatment decision making varied relative to race/ethnicity, being more pronounced among Black patients.

CONCLUSION

Most articles focused on R&S relative to treatment decision making at the end of life, even though R&S appeared important across the care continuum. To improve patient-centered cancer care, providers need to be more aware of the impact of R&S on treatment decision making.

Incorporating palliative care principles to improve patient care and quality of life in urologic oncology

Palliative care - specialized healthcare focused on improving quality of life for patients with serious illnesses - can help urologists to care for patients with unmet symptom, coping and communication needs. Society guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend incorporating palliative care into standard oncological care, based on multiple randomized trials demonstrating that it significantly improves physical well-being, patient satisfaction and goal concordant care. Misconceptions regarding the objective and ideal timing of palliative care are common; a key concept is that palliative care and treatments seeking to cure or prolong life are not mutually exclusive. Urologists are well positioned to champion the integration of palliative care into surgical urologic oncology and should be aware of palliative care guidelines, indications for palliative care use and how the field of urologic oncology can adopt best practices.

Trends in End-of-Life Resource Utilization and Costs among Prostate Cancer Patients from 2006 to 2015: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate end-of-life resource utilization and costs for prostate cancer patients during the last year of life in Korea.

Materials and Methods

The study used the National Health Information Database (NHIS-2017-4-031) of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Healthcare claim data for the years 2002 through 2015 were collected from the Korean National Health Insurance System. Among 83,173 prostate cancer patients, we enrolled 18,419 after excluding 1,082 who never claimed for the last year of life.

Results

From 2006 to 2015, there was a 3.2-fold increase the total number of prostate cancer decedents. The average cost of care during the last year of life increased over the 10-year period, from 14,420,000 Korean won to 20,300,000 Korean won, regardless of survival time. The cost of major treatments and medications, other than analgesics, was relatively high. Radiologic tests, opioids, pain control, and rehabilitation costs were relatively low. Multiple regression analysis identified age and living in rural area as negatively associated with prostate cancer care costs, whereas income level and a higher number of comorbidities were positively associated.

Conclusions

Expenditure of prostate cancer care during the last year of life varied according to patient characteristics. Average costs increased every year. However, the results suggest underutilization of support services, likely due to lack of alternative accommodation for terminal prostate cancer patients. Further examination of patterns of utilization of healthcare resources will allow policymakers to take a better approach to reducing the burden of prostate cancer care.

Interprofessional spiritual care in oncology: a literature review

Spiritual care is recognised as an essential element of the care of patients with serious illness such as cancer. Spiritual distress can result in poorer health outcomes including quality of life. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and other organisations recommend addressing spiritual needs in the clinical setting. This paper reviews the literature findings and proposes recommendations for interprofessional spiritual care.

The THRIVE model: A framework and review of internal and external predictors of coping with chronic illness

This article explores the ways in which people cope with social and clinical dimensions of their chronic conditions. Existing literature was reviewed to categorize factors identified as being key. They were sorted into six groupings which are reflected by the acronym THRIVE: therapeutic interventions, habit and routine, relational-social, individual differences, values and beliefs, and emotional factors. We found little evidence to suggest different conditions prompt unique coping responses; rather, a range of common factors were observed across diverse conditions. The THRIVE framework not only summarizes current literature but provides a starting point for further research and development of future interventions.

Prostate cancer survivorship: lessons from caring for the uninsured

Since 2001, UCLA has operated

IMPACT

Improving Access, Counseling, and Treatment for Californians with Prostate Cancer (CaP). Funded by the California Department of Public Health, with a cumulative budget of over $80 million, the program provides comprehensive care for low-income, uninsured Californian men with biopsy-proven CaP. Health services research conducted with program enrollees, through the UCLA Men's Health Study, yields an opportunity to perform qualitative and quantitative assessments of patient-reported outcomes in these men, all members of historically underserved, primarily minority populations. This review summarizes data from several studies in which validated instruments were administered longitudinally in 727 participants, prospectively measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL), self-efficacy in interactions with physician interactions, social and emotional health, symptom distress, satisfaction with care, and other patient-reported outcomes.