University of Limerick
Browse
Coffey_2017_Advance.pdf (622.58 kB)

Advance care planning within survivorship care plans for older cancer survivors: a systematic review

Download (622.58 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2018-11-19, 11:57 authored by Rónán O'Caoimh, Nicola Cornally, Ronan O'Sullivan, Ruth Hally, Elizabeth Weathers, Amanda H. Lavan, Tara Kearns, Alice CoffeyAlice Coffey, Ciara McGlade, David William Molloy
Advances in the medical treatment of cancer have increased the number of survivors, particularly among older adults, who now represent the majority of these. Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are documents that cancer patients receive summarising their care, usually at the end of treatment but preferably from initial diagnosis. These may increase patient satisfaction and represent an opportunity to initiate preventative strategies and address future care needs. Advance care planning (ACP), incorporating advance healthcare decision-making, including formal written directives, increases satisfaction and end-of-life care. This paper systematically reviews evaluations of ACP within SCPs among older (≥65 years) cancer survivors. No studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified by search strategies conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases. One paper examined cancer survivors’ mainly positive views of ACP. Another discussed the use of a SCP supported by a ‘distress inventory’ that included an advance care directive (living will) as an issue, though no formal evaluation was reported. Although ACP is important for older adults, no study was found that evaluated its role within survivorship care planning. Despite the risk of recurrence and the potential for morbidity and mortality, especially among older cancer survivors, ACP is not yet a feature of SCPs.

History

Publication

Maturitas;105, pp. 52-57

Publisher

Elsevier

Note

peer-reviewed

Rights

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Maturitas. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Maturitas, 105, pp. 52-57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.06.027

Language

English

Usage metrics

    University of Limerick

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC