You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Adult nursing
Discussing life expectancy: incorporating evidence-based professional training and guidelines into clinical practice
  1. Akhtar Ebrahimi Ghassemi
  1. Hartwick College, Oneonta, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Akhtar Ebrahimi Ghassemi, Hartwick College, Oneonta, NY, USA; aghassemi11{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103484

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary on: Bjork E, Thompson W, Ryg J, et al. Patient preferences for discussing the life expectancy: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2021;36: 3136–47. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-06973-5

    Implications for practice and research

    • To provide quality patient-centred care, healthcare providers (HCPs) should involve patients in treatment decisions and consider patients’ preferences in discussing life expectancy.

    • Innovative research should focus on developing tools to assist HCPs in predicting life expectancy and evidence-based professional training to prepare HCPs for evaluating and integrating life expectancy discussion into their routine clinical practice.

    Context

    Literature has revealed that contextual discussion of life expectancy helps inform decisions related to screening, preventive measures, treatment options and individual care planning.1 2

    However, several systematic reviews (SRs) have disclosed that HCPs may encounter challenges including lack of appropriate competence and evidence-based guidelines, and imbalance of power between themselves and their patients.2 3 Bjork et al conducted an SR with the purpose of providing ‘a …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.