Ethical challenges in family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer - a qualitative study.
Cancer
Caregivers
Decision
End-of-life care
Ethics
Moral distress
Palliative care
Journal
BMC palliative care
ISSN: 1472-684X
Titre abrégé: BMC Palliat Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 May 2020
18 May 2020
Historique:
received:
04
07
2019
accepted:
07
05
2020
entrez:
20
5
2020
pubmed:
20
5
2020
medline:
14
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Caring for patients with advanced or terminal diseases can confront family caregivers (FC) with ethical challenges. The present study aims at tracing paths connected to ethical challenges among FC of advanced cancer patients by exploring morally troubling situations and related burden, as well as strategies to handle the situation and experience of moral distress from the grieving FC's perspective. Within a qualitative design, interviews with 12 grieving FC were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analysed using grounded theory and abductive reasoning. Core phenomena identified were two paths connected to ethical challenges among FC. Ethical challenges occurred in the context of difficult decision-making (Path 1) and in the context of lacking decision-making options when no decision was to be made by FC (Path 2). We found each path to be triggered by distinct sets of morally troubling situations that occurred during the patient's disease trajectory. In the course of difficult decision-making (Path 1), detrimental external factors could add emotional stress, thus making the decision-making process burdensome. FC used various proactive strategies to overcome those detrimental factors and/or to make the decision. Decisions in conflict with FCs' own moral expectations and values led to moral distress, generating painful emotions. When no decision was to be made by FC (Path 2), FC felt powerless and overrun, which was associated with major emotionality in terms of anxiety and confusion. Either detrimental factors aggravated these feelings to paralyzing shock, or internal resources enabled FC to accept the situation. While acceptance prevented moral distress, paralyzing shock often caused a sense of not meeting their their own moral expectations and values, resulting in moral distress. In both paths, factors were identified that helped FC finding closure and prevented moral residue. Nevertheless, some FC experienced residual moral distress months after the morally troubling situation had occurred. Findings provide first information towards understanding paths leading to ethical challenges in FC and can help clinicians to minimize associated emotional burden and moral distress.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Caring for patients with advanced or terminal diseases can confront family caregivers (FC) with ethical challenges. The present study aims at tracing paths connected to ethical challenges among FC of advanced cancer patients by exploring morally troubling situations and related burden, as well as strategies to handle the situation and experience of moral distress from the grieving FC's perspective.
METHODS
METHODS
Within a qualitative design, interviews with 12 grieving FC were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analysed using grounded theory and abductive reasoning.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Core phenomena identified were two paths connected to ethical challenges among FC. Ethical challenges occurred in the context of difficult decision-making (Path 1) and in the context of lacking decision-making options when no decision was to be made by FC (Path 2). We found each path to be triggered by distinct sets of morally troubling situations that occurred during the patient's disease trajectory. In the course of difficult decision-making (Path 1), detrimental external factors could add emotional stress, thus making the decision-making process burdensome. FC used various proactive strategies to overcome those detrimental factors and/or to make the decision. Decisions in conflict with FCs' own moral expectations and values led to moral distress, generating painful emotions. When no decision was to be made by FC (Path 2), FC felt powerless and overrun, which was associated with major emotionality in terms of anxiety and confusion. Either detrimental factors aggravated these feelings to paralyzing shock, or internal resources enabled FC to accept the situation. While acceptance prevented moral distress, paralyzing shock often caused a sense of not meeting their their own moral expectations and values, resulting in moral distress. In both paths, factors were identified that helped FC finding closure and prevented moral residue. Nevertheless, some FC experienced residual moral distress months after the morally troubling situation had occurred.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Findings provide first information towards understanding paths leading to ethical challenges in FC and can help clinicians to minimize associated emotional burden and moral distress.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32423444
doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00573-6
pii: 10.1186/s12904-020-00573-6
pmc: PMC7236546
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
70Références
Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Apr;91(1):3-13
pubmed: 23332193
J Med Ethics. 2010 May;36(5):279-83
pubmed: 20439328
Omega (Westport). 2009-2010;60(1):89-102
pubmed: 20039533
AMA J Ethics. 2017 Jun 1;19(6):578-584
pubmed: 28644787
J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Mar;25(3):255-60
pubmed: 20063128
Aging Ment Health. 2020 Jan 8;:1-8
pubmed: 31913052
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17(S3):239-43
pubmed: 27165232
JAMA. 2016 Jul 5;316(1):51-62
pubmed: 27380343
J Med Ethics. 2016 May;42(5):321-4
pubmed: 26969723
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Dec;54(6):853-860.e1
pubmed: 28797852
Bioethics. 2019 Jun;33(5):601-608
pubmed: 30734331
J Adv Nurs. 2016 Dec;72(12):2954-2965
pubmed: 27221824
Am J Med. 1996 Aug;101(2):135-41
pubmed: 8757352
J Palliat Med. 2010 Oct;13(10):1199-203
pubmed: 20849278
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018 Jun;35(6):866-874
pubmed: 29186982
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001 Sep;22(3):784-90
pubmed: 11532591
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Oct;65(8):1708-19
pubmed: 17619068
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Apr;66(7):1533-44
pubmed: 18222589
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 Jan;26(1):
pubmed: 26931469
Psychooncology. 2017 Jun;26(6):770-778
pubmed: 27437905
Health Soc Work. 2007 Aug;32(3):197-206
pubmed: 17896676
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 May;53(5):862-870
pubmed: 28189769
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Aug;66(8):1515-1523
pubmed: 29972594
Singapore Med J. 2012 Jan;53(1):11-6
pubmed: 22252176
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Nurs Inq. 2010 Sep;17(3):221-30
pubmed: 20712660
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Oct 26;20(1):76
pubmed: 31655573
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Sep 6;16(1):48
pubmed: 28877699
Palliat Support Care. 2005 Jun;3(2):131-42
pubmed: 16594438
Psychooncology. 2018 Jan;27(1):302-308
pubmed: 28742228
J Palliat Med. 2011 Jul;14(7):864-9
pubmed: 21599532
HEC Forum. 2017 Dec;29(4):313-346
pubmed: 28600658
Med Health Care Philos. 2018 Mar;21(1):51-62
pubmed: 28674939
BMC Palliat Care. 2019 Nov 18;18(1):102
pubmed: 31739802
Crit Care Med. 2012 Aug;40(8):2281-6
pubmed: 22809903
J Clin Ethics. 2009 Winter;20(4):330-42
pubmed: 20120853
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44
pubmed: 24193818
Online J Health Ethics. 2008;5(1):
pubmed: 23459516
Semin Oncol Nurs. 2014 Nov;30(4):287-95
pubmed: 25361881
J Palliat Med. 2011 Oct;14(10):1109-16
pubmed: 21895453
Psychooncology. 2008 Sep;17(9):926-31
pubmed: 18157913
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Aug 14;16(1):40
pubmed: 28806952
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 21;18(1):148
pubmed: 30463515
BMJ. 2005 Apr 30;330(7498):1007-11
pubmed: 15860828
BMC Med Ethics. 2008 Apr 24;9:7
pubmed: 18435846
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 13;14(3):e0212967
pubmed: 30865681
J Med Philos. 2015 Aug;40(4):451-72
pubmed: 26069283
BMC Palliat Care. 2016 Nov 8;15(1):92
pubmed: 27825330