Search

Background: Among the methods that promote quality of life and care, discussing and remembering end-of-life (EOL) wishes for future care may contribute to decision-making about care and the promotion of a good death. Our aim was to investigate the most significant EOL desires among Brazilian cancer patients receiving palliative care (PC)., Methods: This was an exploratory, descriptive, and qualitative study conducted in a Palliative Care Oncology Unit. Fifteen patients played the Go Wish card game (GWCG), choosing and categorizing cards into themes as very important, more or less important, and not important at all. The ten most important cards were discussed, and categories were defined for each card. Cards with the highest frequencies of choice were described. Patients were also asked, "What did playing the cards mean to you?". All data were analyzed using Bardin's content analysis and generated a word cloud to interpret the participants' narratives., Results: Out of the 36 cards, card 19, "I want my family and friends close to me", was the most frequently chosen. Out of the 15 patients studied, only one reported that they initially did not enjoy playing the cards. In this study, the GWCG was effective in fulfilling 90% of the patients' wishes, and this was only possible with the support of the researchers, members of the multi-professional team, and patients' families., Conclusions: The use of the GWCG in the oncology PC setting made an important contribution to open discussions about patients' values and preferences, as well as being an easy-to-use, understandable, and flexible tool. Prioritizing the fulfillment of patients' wishes was one of the main strengths of this study. Our study suggests working with these wishes as a framework for person-centered care.

Introduction: As a result of Industry 5.0's technological advancements, collaborative robots (cobots) have emerged as pivotal enablers for refining manufacturing processes while re-focusing on humans. However, the successful integration of these cutting-edge tools hinges on a better understanding of human factors when interacting with such new technologies, eventually fostering workers' trust and acceptance and promoting low-fatigue work. This study thus delves into the intricate dynamics of human-cobot interactions by adopting a human-centric view. Methods: With this intent, we targeted senior workers, who often contend with diminishing work capabilities, and we explored the nexus between various human factors and task outcomes during a joint assembly operation with a cobot on an ergonomic workstation. Exploiting a dual-task manipulation to increase the task demand, we measured performance, subjective perceptions, eye-tracking indices and cardiac activity during the task. Firstly, we provided an overview of the senior workers' perceptions regarding their shared work with the cobot, by measuring technology acceptance, perceived wellbeing, work experience, and the estimated social impact of this technology in the industrial sector. Secondly, we asked whether the considered human factors varied significantly under dual-tasking, thus responding to a higher mental load while working alongside the cobot. Finally, we explored the predictive power of the collected measurements over the number of errors committed at the work task and the participants' perceived workload. Results: The present findings demonstrated how senior workers exhibited strong acceptance and positive experiences with our advanced workstation and the cobot, even under higher mental strain. Besides, their task performance suffered increased errors and duration during dual-tasking, while the eye behavior partially reflected the increased mental demand. Some interesting outcomes were also gained about the predictive power of some of the collected indices over the number of errors committed at the assembly task, even though the same did not apply to predicting perceived workload levels. Discussion: Overall, the paper discusses possible applications of these results in the 5.0 manufacturing sector, emphasizing the importance of adopting a holistic human-centered approach to understand the human-cobot complex better., Competing Interests: Authors AR and LM were employed by BNP Srl. CP is the CEO of BNP Srl. BNP Srl was a partner of the Co-Adapt project. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. PP was Review Editor for Frontiers in Organizational Psychology Employee Well-being and Health and Frontiers in Psychology for Clinical Settings. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2023 Pluchino, Pernice, Nenna, Mingardi, Bettelli, Bacchin, Spagnolli, Jacucci, Ragazzon, Miglioranzi, Pettenon and Gamberini.)

Objective(s): To develop a questionnaire that assesses the level of comprehension and decision-making capacity of patients with breast cancer about palliative care and advance care planning. Methods: Questionnaire items were based on the scientific literature. Delphi Consensus, a three-round survey with experts (n  =  14), evaluated the relevance, clarity, and redundancies of the items. A pretest with breast cancer patients (n  =  15) evaluated whether they comprehended each item and identified doubts or discomforts. Results: The initial questionnaire was composed of 38 items. After the Delphi, 18 items were restructured, six were added, and 16 were removed. In the pretest phase, all items with the survey header, guidelines, and Likert model were evaluated. All items accomplished ≥80% cut-off score and were kept as in the original version. The final version of the questionnaire have 28 itens and five domains: determination, responsibility, independence, self-knowledge, and knowledge of reality. Conclusions: This study represents the first step in the development of a questionnaire that may be used in oncology clinical practice. The main findings revealed that Delphi and pretesting increased the quality of the questionnaire, making it compelling to assess breast cancer patients' comprehension and decision-making capacity about PC and ACP.

Background: The Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire (QoDD) may prove to be an important evaluation tool in the Brazilian context, and, therefore, can contribute to a more precise evaluation of the dying and death process, improving and guiding the end-of-life patient care., Objective: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the QoDD into Brazilian Portuguese and measure its validity (convergent and known-groups) and internal consistency., Design and Setting: A cross-sectional, methodological study was conducted at the Hospital de Câncer de Barretos, Brazil., Methods: A total of 78 family caregivers participated in this study. Semantic, cultural, and conceptual equivalences were evaluated using the content validity index. The construct validity was assessed through convergent validation and known groups analysis [presence of family members at the place of death; feel at peace with dying; and place of death (hospital versus home; hospital versus Palliative Care)]. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha., Results: The questionnaire was translated into Brazilian Portuguese and presented evidence of a clear understanding of its content. Cronbach's alpha values were ≥ 0.70, except for the domains of treatment preference (α = 0.686) and general concerns (α = 0.599). The convergent validity confirmed a part of the previously hypothesized correlations between the Palliative Care Outcome Scale-Brazil (POS-Br) total scores and the QoDD domain scores. The QoDD-Br domains could distinguish the patients who died in palliative care and general wards., Conclusion: The QoDD-Br is a culturally adapted valid instrument, and may be used to assess the quality of death of cancer patients.

(1) Background: In the context of cancer incurability, the communication processes involving clinicians and patients with cancer are frequently complex. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study that investigated outpatients with advanced cancers and their oncologists. Both were interviewed immediately after a medical appointment in which there was disease progression and/or clinical deterioration, and were asked about the patient’s chance of curability and the goals of the prescribed cancer treatment. The patients were asked whether they would like to receive information about prognosis and how they would like to receive it. The analyses of agreement on perceptions were performed using the Kappa’s test. (3) Results: the sample consisted of 90 patients and 28 oncologists. Seventy-eight (87.6%) patients answered that they wanted their oncologist to inform them about their prognosis; only 35.2% (n = 31) of them said they received such information at their present appointment. Regarding how they would prefer prognostic disclosure, 61.8% (n = 55) mentioned that the oncologist should consider ways to keep the patient’s hope up; 73% (n = 65) of the patients reported odds >50% of cure. The agreement between oncologists’ and their patients’ perceptions regarding the treatment goals and curability was slight (k = 0.024 and k = 0.017, respectively). (4) Conclusions: The perceptions of patients and their oncologists regarding the goals of treatment and their chances of cure were in disagreement. New approaches are needed to improve the communication process between oncologists and patients with advanced cancer.