Sep 11, 2023
This episode features Caitlin Spooner (Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, London, UK).
What is already known about the topic?
- Currently, there is no gold standard for evaluating how different methods of prognosticating in advanced cancer impact on patient care.
- Prognostic models are principally evaluated by their statistical performance, determining their discrimination and calibration. However, before any prognostic model can be recommended for use in clinical practice, it is necessary to demonstrate whether or not it has a beneficial impact on patient care.
- There is a lack of consensus among stakeholders about how to assess the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer, with prognostic studies varying in the outcomes they select.
What this paper adds?
- We identified a wide variety of outcomes and measures used in published studies, which makes inter-study comparability problematic.
- Our findings highlight the widespread effect that prognostication in advanced cancer has on patients and informal caregivers.
- The lived experiences of patients and informal caregivers regarding prognostication in advanced cancer are not always represented in the outcomes quantitative prognostic studies measure.
Implications for practice, theory, or policy
- Further research is needed to identify and prioritise outcomes to measure the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer.
- Patients’ and informal caregivers’ experiences and perspectives should always be incorporated when evaluating the impact of prognostication.
- Outcome selection in prognostication studies needs to be more consistent and standardised.
Full paper available from:
If you would like to record a podcast about your published (or accepted) Palliative Medicine paper, please contact Dr Amara Nwosu: