The impact on quality of life from informing diagnosis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the impact on quality of life from informing patients with cancer of their diagnosis and disease status. Method: We searched the follow databases, PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), PsycINFO, WEB OF SCIENCE, Embase, CBM (Chinese Biomedical Literature database), WANFANG database (Chinese Medicine Premier), and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), using the following terms: neoplasm, cancer, tumor, tumor, carcinoma, disclosure, truth telling, breaking bad news, knowledge, knowing, awareness, quality of life, QOL. Pairs of reviewers independently screened documents and extracted the data, and the meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.0 software. Results: Eleven thousand seven hundred forty records retrieved from the databases and 23 studies were included in the final analysis. A meta-analysis revealed that there were no differences in either the general quality of life and symptoms of fatigue, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, and diarrhea, between informed and uniformed cancer patients (P > 0.05). There were also no differences found between the patient groups in physical function, role function, cognitive activity, and emotional function (P > 0.05). In terms of vitality, patients who were completely informed about their diagnosis showed higher vitality than uniformed patients. Uninformed patients seemed to have lower social function scores. Between partly informed and uninformed cancer patients, no differences were found in their general quality of life, function domains, and disease-related symptoms (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Informing cancer patients of their diagnosis may not have a detrimental effect on their quality of life. Trial registration: CRD42017060073.

Information disclosure to cancer patients in Mainland China: A meta‐analysis

“…Fixed‐effects models were chosen when heterogeneity was lower than 0.50. Otherwise, random‐effects models were used 18,28 . Egger's tests were employed to check publication bias for between‐group differences and predictors' effects examined by at least 3 studies 29 .…”

“…Otherwise, random-effects models were used. 18,28 Egger's tests were employed to check publication bias for between-group differences and predictors' effects examined by at least 3 studies. 29 For synthesis involving at least 5 studies, meta-regressions were run to test the moderation effects of publication year, sample size, and study quality.…”

“…In recent years, information about advanced directives, 15 palliative care, and hospice care 16 for end‐stage patients has been introduced to Mainland China, during which great emphasis is given to patients' autonomy 17 . Meanwhile, increasing evidence in China shows that information disclosure to cancer patients may not have detrimental effects on patients' mental health or quality of life 18,19 . Concerns are rising over families hiding the truth, 20 and an increasing number of Chinese healthcare professionals experience value conflicts when telling white lies to patients 21 …”

As Novas Faces Da Saúde: Tecnologia E Multidisciplinaridade No Contexto Atual

“…The impact on quality of life from informing diagnosis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis (WAN et al, 2020) Bioética e comunicação de más notícias em oncologia pediátrica: experiência em um hospital público (SOEIRO et al, 2020) Revista Artigos. Com…”

“…Nesse sentido, as neoplasias em geral são consideradas uma preocupação especial em todo o mundo, e por isso a qualidade de vida dos pacientes é importante para a construção de uma jornada terapêutica eficaz, em meio ao manejo da moléstia e a comunicação da má notícia (WAN et al, 2020). Adicionalmente, o significado de má notícia pode ser definido por todo conhecimento que abale a perspectiva do indivíduo sobre seu futuro de uma maneira negativa (BOMFIM et.…”