Qualitative evaluation of motives for acceptance or refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials in a French comprehensive cancer center: the PALPHA study

• Published in: Supportive care in cancer 2024-06, Vol.32 (6), p.353-353, Article 353
• Main Authors: Lochmann, Mathilde, Girodet, Magali, Despax, Johanna, Baudry, Valentine, Duranti, Julie, Mastroianni, Bénédicte, Vanacker, Hélène, Vinceneux, Armelle, Brahmi, Mehdi, Renard, Olivier, Verlingue, Loïc, Amini-Adle, Mona, Swalduz, Aurélie, Gautier, Julien, Ducimetière, Françoise, Anota, Amélie, Cassier, Philippe A., Chvetzoff, Gisèle, Christophe, Véronique
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cancer; Clinical Trials as Topic - psychology; Decision making; Double-Blind Method; Female; France; Health services utilization; Humans; Male; Medical referrals; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Motivation; Neoplasms - psychology; Neoplasms - therapy; Nursing; Nursing Research; Oncology; Pain Medicine; Palliative care; Palliative Care - methods; Palliative Care - psychology; Patient Acceptance of Health Care - psychology; Patients; Qualitative Research; Quality of Life; Rehabilitation Medicine; Treatment Refusal - psychology
• ISSN: 0941-4355; 1433-7339
• DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08535-x

Purpose The integration of palliative care (PC) into oncological management is recommended well before the end of life. It improves quality of life and symptom control and reduces the aggressiveness of end-of-life care. However, its appropriate timing is still debated. Entry into an early-phase clinical trial (ECT) represents hopes for the patient when standard treatments have failed. It is an opportune moment to integrate PC to preserve the patient’s general health status. The objective of this study was to evaluate the motives for acceptance or refusal of early PC management in patients included in an ECT. Methods Patients eligible to enter an ECT were identified and concomitant PC was proposed. All patients received exploratory interviews conducted by a researcher. Their contents were analyzed in a double-blind thematic analysis with a self-determination model. Results Motives for acceptance (PC acceptors: n  = 27) were both intrinsic (e.g., pain relief, psychological support, anticipation of the future) and extrinsic (e.g., trust in the medical profession, for a relative, to support the advance of research). Motives for refusal (PC refusers: n  = 3) were solely intrinsic (e.g., PC associated with death, negative representation of psychological support, no need for additional care, claim of independence). Conclusions The motives of acceptors and refusers are not internalized in the same way and call for different autonomy needs. Acceptors and refusers are influenced by opposite representations of PC and a different perception of mixed management.