Skip to main content
Download PDF

Is shared decision making an aspect of palliative care integration? An observation of collaboration between oncologists and palliative care professionals

BMC Palliative Care volume 23, Article number: 279 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Early palliative care interventions in oncology, as recommended by international oncology societies, promote patient understanding and support decision-making. At the same time, shared decision-making models are being developed to enhance patient participation as part of a new model of patient-physician relationship. For patients with palliative needs, this participation is essential and helps to avoid futile and aggressive treatments at the end of life. The aim of this study is to observe decision making during meetings between oncology and palliative care professionals, focusing particularly on the components of shared decision-making models, but also on the role played by palliative care professionals.

Methods

We conducted a non-participant observation of multidisciplinary meetings and outpatient clinic activities in two Comprehensive Cancer Centres in France. Field notes were then coded using thematic content analysis. Deductive analysis was conducted using the observation grid developed from Elwyn's three-talk model.

Results

Only a few elements of the different models of shared decision-making are apparent in the multidisciplinary meetings. Palliative care professionals emphasise the importance of involving patients and providing them with information about the advantages and disadvantages of different treatment options.

However, patient involvement in decision-making remains difficult in daily practice. Decisions to discontinue oncological treatment are often driven by clinical and biological signs of terminal evolution rather than shared decision-making.

Conclusions

There are still cultural and organisational barriers to actual implementation of early integrated onco-palliative care. Promotion of shared decision making can be a strong lever of change which is frequently mobilised by palliative care teams.

Peer Review reports

Background

Based on a growing body of literature, both the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology have recommended early palliative care interventions alongside treatment for all patients with advanced cancer [1, 2]. Early palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life and reduce intensive care in the last months of life, without shortening duration of survival [3,4,5,6]. The aim is not only to enable better assessment and management of physical and psychological symptoms, but also to provide regular information, with particular emphasis on the patient's understanding of their prognosis. This component of early palliative care have been described as “illness understanding/education, decision making, and coping with life-threatening illness” [7]. In addition, early palliative care can help to address the social impact and spiritual suffering related to life-limiting diseases [8]. This will support decision-making at the end of life, in accordance with the patient’s wishes.

Shared decision making (SDM) can be seen as a key element of early palliative care to support end-of-life decision making [9]. This concept has been growing in North America since the 1980s and in Europe since the early 2000s, reflecting a shift towards a more patient-centred approach. The paternalistic model evolved into one of informed and then SDM [10]. In 2013, the French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS)) conducted a review of SDM [11], using the most common definition at the time: SDM involves a patient and a physician, whose exchange allows information sharing between the two parties and the expression of treatment preferences on both sides. Ultimately, a consensus on a treatment plan is reached through this discussion. However, there are many practical variations of this model [12, 13], depending on the setting or healthcare professional. SDM is mainly used in oncology when several treatment options are available and nearly equivalent in terms of benefits and risks. Examples include prostate cancer screening and surgical reconstruction after breast cancer [14].

At the same time, the integration of early palliative care in oncology is taking shape around two models: multidisciplinary meetings [15,16,17,18,19] and palliative care outpatient clinics [20]. The multidisciplinary meeting model promotes communication between the referring oncologist and other professionals involved with the patient. It also encourages consideration of patient preferences. As for palliative care outpatient clinics, they allow the patient to meet with different professionals at the same time, promoting the bond of trust between the patient, the oncologist, and the palliative care team. In this organisational model, some oncologists fear losing control over the therapeutic project in favour of palliative physicians [21]. The practical implementation of this integration still raises questions, both in France [22, 23] and internationally [24]. There are still many questions about the ideal time to introduce it, the type of care to be provided and the professionals that should be involved [25].

Regarding decision support, no study in France has focused on the SDM model implemented in early palliative care. However, the terms "care planning" or "advance discussions" are sometimes mentioned, which may reflect the implementation of SDM [26]. The aim of this study is therefore to observe decision making during meetings between oncology and palliative care professionals, focusing particularly on the component of SDM models, but also on the role played by palliative care professionals.

Methods

Method and findings are reported as per the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) [27].

Design and setting

This study uses a descriptive approach [28] to the decision-making process, in the form of non-participant observation of collaboration between oncologists and palliative care professionals who have published data on their organisation of integrated palliative care and who indirectly claim to be working on the implementation of SDM process.

Participants

The research was carried out in two Comprehensive Cancer Centres in Paris, France (Curie Institute and Gustave Roussy Institute) from March to June 2022. Gustave Roussy developed the Reunions Collégiales d'Appui (Collegial Support Meetings—CSM), which are described in detail in 2023 [29]. Meetings are held weekly in four of the hospital's oncology departments. They bring together all the professionals in the unit (physicians, residents, nurses and care assistants) as well as members of the palliative care teams (physician, residents, nurses, psychologist) and a member of the ethics committee (an intensive care unit physician).

At the Curie Institute, palliative care professionals (physician and nurses) participate in multidisciplinary onco-palliative meetings (OPM) held in the oncology department [16]. In addition, an outpatient clinic run by the palliative care team will also be set up. Patients are mainly referred to this outpatient clinic when entering the final stages of their disease, regardless of whether oncological treatment has been discontinued. The aim of this approach is threefold: to relieve symptoms, to support the patient’s frequent wish to stay at home as long as possible and to help the patient come to terms with their incurable illness [30]. While the palliative care team may not always play a direct role in these actions, it does contribute to them, working alongside the referring oncologist.

In both types of meeting (CSM and OPM), the case will be discussed at the initiative of the oncology team, either physicians and/or nurses, when the case is particularly clinically, psychologically or socially complex or presents complications during hospitalisation. Physicians including oncologists, surgeons, and intensive care physicians, as well as residents, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and care assistants involved in patient care, along with palliative care professionals, are invited to attend the meeting. It is acknowledged that not all individuals may be present at each meeting. The discussion goes on to address the goal of treatment, the intensity of care, ethical and psychosocial issues, and the patient's life plan. The case is typically presented by the patient's nurse, with physicians providing necessary details for comprehension. Patients and their families do not attend these meetings.

Observations were made within the CSM, the OPM and the outpatient clinic activity, making it possible to observe SDM. From the beginning, it was decided not to observe exchanges between professionals and patients. This made it possible to focus on the research question, which was to describe the process of decision making between the oncologists and the palliative care team.

Data collection

Prior to the observations, the researcher (MP) developed an observation grid (Fig. 1). This grid was based on the three-talk model developed by Elwyn (choice talk, options talk and decision talk) [31,32,33] and on characteristics found in literature reviews of other theoretical models of SDM [12, 13, 34]. Justifying the need to make a choice (choice talk) is followed by deliberation where the work of becoming informed about possible alternatives (option talk) and developing informed preferences is supported (decision talk).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Observation grid

Full size image

Before each non-participant observation, the physicians in charge of the CSM at Gustave Roussy and of the outpatient clinic at the Curie Institute were contacted and informed of the study. Due to the sensitivity of the meetings, audio-recordings were not allowed. Hence, data collection took the form of non-participant observation, i.e. field notes and the use of an observation grid. A field diary was kept throughout the fieldwork to facilitate reflection during both data collection and data analysis.

Enrolment stopped when data saturation was reached (i.e., no new information emerged during the non-participation observation meetings).

The non-participant observation was conducted by MP, a female palliative care physician (MD) who did not work in the facilities observed and did not know the participants. This research was conducted as part of her research internship in the field of palliative and end-of-life medicine. MP informed participants of the study’s rationale and objectives before starting the observation. To conduct the study and the analyses, MP was supervised by IC (PhD in public health) and KL (PhD in psychology), two researchers trained in qualitative research, with expertise in the field of palliative care and oncology.

Data analysis

The handwritten field notes were digitised and imported into Nvivo 12software [35]. They were then transcribed into descriptive sentences to ensure homogeneity between narratives. They were then coded using thematic analysis [36,37,38]. A deductive analysis [39] was then carried out based on the observation grid. For the secondary objectives, an inductive analysis [38] was carried out. The narratives were read and then analysed line by line to familiarise oneself with the data and to gain a general understanding of the observations. Initial codes were then generated and grouped into recurring themes that illustrated the roles of palliative care professionals. The analysis was carried out by MD and the first two narratives were reviewed by two other researchers (AT and AR) to ensure that the codes were consistent. Disagreements were discussed. Following the analysis of the first two narratives, a code book was created, which was to be supplemented as necessary in the subsequent analyses. Qualitative research team meetings were used to discuss the development of the coding framework and data analysis. In addition to the qualitative analysis, descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the mean duration of multidisciplinary meetings and the mean number of people present during them. Data collection, processing and analysis were carried out simultaneously throughout the observation period.

Results

Descriptions of the observation locations (Table 1)

Table 1 Description of the observation locations
Full size table

The palliative care outpatient clinic welcomed three to four patients per day. Each day began with a morning report between the physicians and nurses to discuss patient care, then each patient was seen by the team. When necessary, the referring oncologist would come see their patient or be reached by telephone. On each non-participant observation day, the researcher was present in the meeting room listening to the morning report, discussions between palliative care professionals and the referring oncologist when they occurred, and liaison correspondence with other professionals.

Four days, from 9am to 5pm, of non-participant observation were conducted at the Curie Institute’s outpatient clinic, during which 13 patients’ files were discussed. Additionally, five discussions were observed between palliative care physicians and oncologists concerning the patient's oncological treatments.

In the afternoon, two or three other members of the palliative care teams (a doctor, a nurse, and a psychiatrist) participated in the OPM. Four OPM were observed in two different oncology departments during which 9 cases were presented. The referring oncologist was present at two of the meetings.

At Gustave Roussy, four CSM were observed in the same oncology department, where 4 cases were discussed. The referring oncologist attended only once. Hence, the nurse or physician in charge of the hospital department presented the patient's file.

The four CSMs observed lasted about 30–40 min each, in which only one case was discussed per meeting. They took place in the nurses’ office and gathered many professionals simultaneously. The researcher remained in an observational role, taking note of the interactions between the various professionals involved. Exchanges were mainly between the department physicians, the physicians of the palliative care team and the ethics committee.

At the Curie Institute, each OPM lasted about 30 min per case, and sometimes two or three cases were discussed. Depending on the department, the meeting was held either in the nurses’ room or in the family room so as not to be disturbed. These meetings involved fewer professionals. At the end of the meeting, a report was written by the palliative care physician in the patient's medical notes.

During these meetings all the professionals agreed to the non-participant observation study. Furthermore, all the cases discussed during the outpatient clinic, OPM and CSM were presented only once (i.e., one case was not discussed at the first meeting and then at the second or other meeting).

Characteristics of the observed SDM process

The characteristics of the observed SDM process are described within the framework of the three-talk model. Examples of field notes are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Observed material (extract)
Full size table

Choice talk

In the outpatient clinic, the objective of the consultation was determined before meeting the patient. In most cases, it was a clinical symptom reassessment. For two patients, however, the aim was to make a decision on the treatment plan.

The palliative care team informed the patient that a decision needed to be made and verified their understanding of the information. When required, the psychologist evaluated the patient's psychological condition and decision-making ability by meeting with the patient and/or their family.

Because OPM and CSM are scheduled systematically every week, the palliative care team did not always know which patient's files would be discussed. At the beginning of these meetings, the objective was not always pre-defined. Typically, the case to be discussed was chosen for its complexity and the decisions to be made emerged during the discussion. The choice between continuing or stopping the oncological treatment was justified by the presence of a clinical or biological contraindication or the ineffectiveness of the current treatment. These elements also emerged during the discussion of the benefits and risks of treatments between the oncology and palliative care teams.

The possibility of the patient's participation in the decision-making process was not discussed when the need for a decision arose. It only appeared in the discourse of palliative care professionals. The patient's decision-making preferences were not assessed beforehand and were only brought up if the subject was raised during the discussion. In these cases, the patient was described as saying little, not asking questions, sometimes even being passive. The department physicians or oncologists often felt that the patient was not ready to hear about the severity of the disease or the possibility of withdrawing oncological treatment. Communication between physicians and patients was sometimes perceived as difficult, limiting the information given to the patient.

Physicians expressed the principle of medical responsibility in decision making. Final decision on the continuation of oncological treatment was made by the referring oncologist.

Options talk

In the outpatient clinic, the palliative care team systematically reads the patient's file before meeting with him/her. This made it possible to identify the elements the patient needed to know and understand. At the end of the day, these elements were included in the liaison letter.

The physician from the palliative care team discussed oncological treatment options with the referring oncologist. During the discussion, the palliative care physician provided information about the patient's understanding and preferences. If there was an alternative oncological treatment option available, the referring oncologist would present them to the patient. The palliative care physician would make recommendations to the patient if treatment choices were not based on cancer treatments, such as pain medication.

Most often, the palliative care team had not yet met the patients who were presented during OPM and SCM. The oncology team, usually after a question from a palliative care professional, then provides the elements of patient’s knowledge of the disease and prognosis. There was no enumeration of options during the meetings. When discussing treatment options, the oncology team discussed the current or planned oncological treatment. Other possible treatments are mentioned without further detail. Withdrawal of disease-specific treatments and prioritization of quality end-of-life through exclusive palliative care are not made explicitly put forth as options. The discussion therefore focused on the benefits and risks of oncological treatment, not on those of exclusive palliative care. Oncologists sometimes pursue oncological treatment for effective symptom management which reflects a more palliative intention to alleviate. Risks are rarely mentioned. The most frequently discussed element justifying the decision was the clinical-biological feasibility of the treatment.

The discussions highlighted these different considerations, and it is not mentioned whether that the patient had received this information before the meeting. It was therefore not possible to verify the patient's understanding of the options. The oncology team reported that the patient had integrated information on the disease, prognosis, and feasibility of treatment.

Decision talk

In the outpatient clinic. If a decision about oncological treatment was made during the patient's outpatient assessment, the referring oncologist would discuss it with the patient. The patient would be seen in consultation a few days later if the referring oncologist was not present. The palliative care team assessed the patient's preferences and worked with them to determine the optimal course of action if the decision concerned treatment other than specific cancer treatment. The palliative care physician arranged for the treatment to be followed up, either during a new consultation in the clinic or by telephone reassessment by one of the palliative care nurses.

During the meetings, the patient's knowledge, preferences, or opinions were questioned by the palliative care team. Often it seemed that the patient was closed off. Communication is difficult and therefore this element was not explored. Sometimes the patient expressed a lack of choice or did not tell them that he or she did not want to receive treatment. There is also an element of caregivers interpreting the patient's behaviour as an acceptance of treatment. The importance of respecting the patient's preferences is emphasised time and again by the palliative care team and was welcomed by the nurses on the oncology team. Everyone's opinion can be expressed during the meetings. However, the opinion of the referring oncologist prevails. The physician's treatment recommendations were not always well based on scientific evidence. Phrases such as "we want to follow the treatment" or "we have to do it or we'll miss it" were used.

When it came to deciding, either it was a simple matter and the decision was made at the end of the team discussion, or it was a more complex decision and the referring oncologist needed to be involved. The decision was made immediately if there was a clear contraindication to restarting chemotherapy. The decision would be delayed if it is less clear, especially if there was a chance of improvement in the next few days or if tests were still needed.

The role of palliative care professionals

Palliative care professionals, regardless of their grade, encouraged the team to involve the patient more. During discussions, they often suggested the possibility of the patient's participation, of their opinion being considered in the decision, thus recognising the patient's right to refuse treatment.

If they knew the patient, they would provide the team with information such as the patient’s knowledge or understanding of the current situation, and sometimes his or her preference to be informed or involved in the decision-making. Whenever possible, they elicited the patient's understanding, preferences, and opinions. These elements are recorded in the patient's file and transmitted, orally and in writing, to the referring oncologist and the rest of the team.

During the meetings, they participated in the discussion of treatment options by questioning the expected goals of the treatments, as well as the tolerance and risks.

They do not express their own opinion at the beginning of the meeting but encourage everyone to do so. When the outcome of the discussions led to a consensus that they were comfortable with, they stated their agreement with the therapeutic project. If the decision was more complex or if there seems to be resistance, they suggested that the case be discussed again in the next few days. There was often a request for a meeting with the patient or the patient's family if the situation was complex, particularly in terms of communication or relationships between the patient and the team. Even when not requested, they did not hesitate to offer their intervention.

The palliative care team acted as a third party to lead and facilitate meetings. It is common for palliative care physicians to interject when the meeting falls silent. They encouraged nursing staff to speak up, express their differences, and voice the patient’s opinion. Questions from the palliative care team punctuated the meeting. If necessary, they reiterated elements of legislation or symptom management.

Discussion

We found little evidence of implementation of SDM, despite best intentions and the participation of palliative care professionals in meetings and outpatient clinics. Palliative care professionals focus their interactions with other professionals on two objectives: providing the patient with information about their illness and treatments to increase understanding and gathering information about the patient's wishes. Thus, SDM appeared to be a strong potential lever to progress towards an effective early integration of palliative care in oncology, and to improve quality of end-of-life care.

Barriers to the implementation of SDM

One element that may explain the low representation of the concept of SDM is the lack of preparation and framework for meetings. Indeed, there do not seem to be any objective criteria justifying the presentation of one case more than another in a meeting. The notion of complexity is an element that often comes up without being elaborated on. The objective of the meeting and the nature of the decisions to be taken are not explicit at the beginning of the meeting.

The case file, especially the biomedical elements, is largely detailed, but the patient's voice is often absent. What is more often evoked is physician’s and caregiver’s interpretations of the patient’s opinion. The patient seems to consent a priori to the therapeutic project [40, 41]. This lack of attention to the patient's preferences and wishes favours a decision-making process that focuses on the technical feasibility of the treatment [42,43,44,45].

Another important element is the distribution of roles in SDM. Here, the decision-maker remains the referring oncologist, as far as specific oncological treatment is concerned. In their absence, their opinion is systematically sought and mentioned. The difficulty of considering a shared decision, even if only between physicians [21, 46, 47], leaves the referring oncologist in a lonely position when deciding to withdraw treatment [47].

Finally, the idea of withdrawing cancer treatment it is still difficult, especially for oncologists. This is what philosopher Jean Christophe Mino describes when he speaks of "the therapeutic ideology of cancer treatment" [47]. The essence of the oncologist's role is to treat the cancer, thus rejecting the idea of the end of life and of death and perceiving the withdrawal of treatment as a failure. To confront this feeling of failure, oncologists need training to be able to perceive alternative palliative treatment options. Giving patients several options and allowing them to participate in the decision-making helps them to find meaning in their end-of-life care.

Indeed, it is often difficult to discuss withholding oncological treatment [48,49,50]. The patient is sometimes seen as incapable of having this conversation, with the caregivers anticipating the difficulties. There is also clear evasiveness when the patient does not ask a question. There may be other behaviours that limit the patient's ability to participate in decision-making, such as focusing the discussion on physical symptoms [49], on oncological treatment only, or using evasive [51] or optimistic language [52].

The inability to have these discussions limits the physician–patient relationship and prevents further questioning of the patient's desire for information and involvement in decision making. It also prevents the search for the patient's preferences and goals [53,54,55,56,57]. It encourages patients to accept treatment as the only possible option [50]. This is even more detrimental as patients are looking for more time and sometimes more detailed information [58,59,60,61], and they need to be given the opportunity to imagine a situation in which they will have the option of stopping oncological treatment [52].

Strengths and limitations of palliative care integration in oncology

For oncology team caregivers, multiprofessional meetings are a place where the goal of care can be questioned. This makes it possible to question the purpose of current care, but also the burden of care in terms of treatment goals [47]. This allows the departmental physicians, who are not the referring oncologists, to openly discuss the treatment plan together and affirm their therapeutic orientation. Data from those same cancer centers in 2010 were analysed to describe the intensity of care in the last month of life. The study showed that respectively 16% and 26% of patients received chemotherapy in the last 14 days of their lives [23]. These indicators reflect the general difficulty that medical teams and patients face when deciding to withdraw from or give up specific cancer treatments as the disease progresses. A study conducted between January 2020 and February 2021 has shown that patients receiving palliative care are frequently discussed at a late stage of their hospitalisation, with only seven days elapsing between CMS and the patient's death [29]. Despite these meetings, the orientation towards palliative care remains too late.

Whether the patient is known to the palliative care team or not, palliative care professionals ensure that the patient's thoughts, knowledge, understanding and wishes are taken into account [62,63,64]. The palliative care team’s intervention with the patient is often seen as a relationship aid, a way of re-establishing dialogue with the patient [65, 66]. As “outsiders” supporting the decisions of the department physicians, they can help resolve conflicts with families. The palliative care team are often well versed in communication skills. It is often at these meetings that introducing palliative care is suggested. Although professionals are satisfied with the approach, palliative care professionals regret the lack of involvement of the referring oncologist who is usually the physician who has a long-standing relationship with the patient and is responsible for making decisions regarding cancer-related treatment. However, the analysis of the CSMs revealed that that the participation rate of the referring oncologist was only 25% [29]. An onco-palliative care meeting cannot really contribute to true SDM if the organisation is not designed in such a way that the participation of the referring oncologist is a requirement.

In the outpatient clinic, the organisation is more flexible and allows palliative care professionals to be reflective and inventive. The team focuses on the patient. His or her words are recorded and passed on in the patient report.

Here again, the division of roles is quite clear. While some palliative care physicians felt that it was their responsibility to manage symptoms and treatment-related complications, the oncologist remained the decision-maker about oncological treatment. Despite discussions in which the palliative care physicians contributed their opinions and the patients' wishes, the referring oncologist remained reluctant to decide to stop cancer-related treatment [67]. They insist on regaining control over specific treatments, by being able to see the patient again in consultation, alone.

Study limitations

Firstly, these two Comprehensive Cancer Centers in Paris are reference centers for rare cancers and often a place for second opinions. The palliative care physicians are almost all trained in oncology. These two centers are by no means representative of all the collaborations between oncology and palliative care teams, or even of the structures that palliative care teams have set up throughout France to manage their patients. The findings could be enriched by additional research into the decision-making process in other institutions that have developed early integration of palliative care, in oncology [15] or hematology [68].

Secondly, few interactions between the palliative care team and the referring oncologist were observed. OPM and CSM differed from the mandatory multidisciplinary consultation meetings used to determine the therapeutic oncology strategy. There was no systematic presentation of cases in the meetings observed. The concept of complexity was not elaborated upon. There was no opportunity to further explore this concept with oncology department professionals, nor verify whether palliative care professionals concurred on its complexity. It is plausible that decision-making in situations of uncertainty (such as prognosis and benefit-risk balance) is sufficient to justify the notion of complexity [69, 70]. However, on the assumption that all professionals are capable of providing basic palliative care, the intervention of palliative care professionals is regularly motivated by this notion of complexity [25, 63, 71].

Thirdly, transcripts were not returned to the participants nor were the results discussed directly with them. It would have been interesting to include a second step in the study to discuss the results with the participants and to obtain their feedback.

Finally, verbatims are lacking as there was no audio recording. The decision not to record was made after an initial test observation, which confirmed that notetaking was feasible and provided an understandable account of the exchanges. The aim was to identify the elements that constitute an SDM process, rather than to evaluate the nature of the decision and the reasons for it.

Clinical applications

Although few elements of the different models of SDM are observed, it is possible to see these interventions as part of a decision-making process that extends over a longer period. Decision-making does not take place in a single meeting, but is a continuous process, unpredictable because of the evolution of the disease and the effectiveness of treatments [72, 73]. Informed decision making by patients and their families can be supported by close triangular collaboration between cancer specialists, primary care and palliative care teams. To achieve this, however, it is essential to clarify roles, to circulate information between the different actors and to identify the moments of decision-making in the patient's trajectory. Then, to improve the decision-making process during meetings, it seems necessary to prepare them by setting a goal and ensuring the presence of the referring oncologist.

The concept of SDM, in which patients' preferences are elicited and their wishes respected, is an integral part of palliative care. Supporting its development in advanced cancer patients will enhance the effective implementation of palliative care [74,75,76]. This will be promoted through training in SDM and communication, and the development of tools to support patients in the expression of their preferences.

Finally, if SDM itself is popular, it would also be appropriate to explore the impact of its implementation on the patient's care pathway and whether it brings satisfaction to both the patient and the caregivers.

Conclusion

This qualitative study of collaboration between oncology and palliative care teams aimed to describe the decision-making process by comparing it with the elements of SDM models found in the literature. The results show that few elements of the theoretical model are observed in current practice, despite the commitment of palliative care teams to this shared medical decision-making process. Indeed, they continue to promote elements like patients' wishes and preferences and their involvement in the decision-making process.

Where SDM exists in oncology, it seems limited to situations where therapeutic options are curative. Thinking about withdrawing disease-specific treatments remains difficult. To continue the ongoing change in the approach to the therapeutic management of patients with advanced cancer, communication training of oncologists and close collaboration with palliative care professionals are essential.

There are still cultural and organizational barriers to actual implementation of early integrated onco-palliative care. Promotion of SDM can be a strong lever of change which is frequently mobilised by palliative care teams.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

SDM:

Share Decision Making

HAS:

Haute Autorité de Santé

CSM:

Collegial Support Meetings

OPM:

Onco-Palliative Meetings

References

  1. Ferrell BR, Temel JS, Temin S, Smith TJ. Integration of Palliative Care Into Standard Oncology Care: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(2):119–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jordan K, Aapro M, Kaasa S, Ripamonti CI, Scotté F, Strasser F, et al. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) position paper on supportive and palliative care. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2018;29(1):36–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, Gallagher ER, Admane S, Jackson VA, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):733–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zimmermann C, Swami N, Krzyzanowska M, Hannon B, Leighl N, Oza A, et al. Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;383(9930):1721–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakitas M, Lyons KD, Hegel MT, Balan S, Brokaw FC, Seville J, et al. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(7):741–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Haun MW, Estel S, Rücker G, Friederich HC, Villalobos M, Thomas M, et al. Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD011129.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacobsen J, Jackson V, Dahlin C, Greer J, Perez-Cruz P, Billings JA, et al. Components of early outpatient palliative care consultation in patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(4):459–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. World Health Organization (WHO). National cancer control programmes: policies and managerial guidelines. 2nd ed. 2002. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/national-cancer-control-programmes.

  9. Mancini J. L’autonomie de décision des patients atteints de cancer : pourquoi et comment la promouvoir ? Bull Cancer (Paris). 2018;105(2):193–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1982. 1997;44(5):681–92.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Haute Autorité de santé. Patients et professionnels de santé : décider ensemble. 2013. p. 76.

  12. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):301–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bomhof-Roordink H, Gärtner FR, Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH. Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e031763.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Milan L, Doucène S, Lenoir G, Farsi F, Moumjid N, Blot F. Leviers et freins à la prise de décision partagée en France en 2021: enquête nationale auprès des patients atteints de cancer. Bull Cancer (Paris). 2023;110(9):893–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barth C, Colombet I, Montheil V, Huillard O, Boudou-Rouquette P, Tlemsani C, et al. First referral to an integrated onco-palliative care program: a retrospective analysis of its timing. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19(1):31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Thery L, Vaflard P, Vuagnat P, Soulie O, Dolbeault S, Burnod A, et al. Advanced cancer and COVID-19 comorbidity: medical oncology-palliative medicine ethics meetings in a comprehensive cancer centre. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2024;14(e1):e594–9.

  17. Blot F, Dumont SN, Vigouret-Viant L, Verotte N, Rossignol J, Rieutord A, et al. Ethical issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with cancer: experience and organisations in a French comprehensive cancer centre. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2022;12(4):413–20.

  18. Colombet I, Montheil V, Durand JP, Gillaizeau F, Niarra R, Jaeger C, et al. Effect of integrated palliative care on the quality of end-of-life care: retrospective analysis of 521 cancer patients. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2012;2(3):239–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huillard O, Colombet I, Montheil V, Weiler F, Boudou-Rouquette P, Arrondeau J, et al. Integration of Oncology and Palliative Care, a Forgotten Indicator: Shared Decision-Making. Oncologist. 2015;20(9):e26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Thery L, Anota A, Waechter L, Laouisset C, Marchal T, Burnod A, et al. Palliative care in day-hospital for advanced cancer patients: a study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial. BMC Palliat Care. 2021;20(1):61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kruser TJ, Kruser JM, Gross JP, Moran M, Kaiser K, Szmuilowicz E, et al. Medical oncologist perspectives on palliative care reveal physician-centered barriers to early integration. Ann Palliat Med. 2020;9(5):2800–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sahut d’Izarn M, Vinant P, Bouleuc C. Comment contourner les freins à l’intégration des soins palliatifs en oncologie ? Bull Cancer (Paris). 2022;109(5):579–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Colombet I, Bouleuc C, Piolot A, Vilfaillot A, Jaulmes H, Voisin-Saltiel S, et al. Multicentre analysis of intensity of care at the end-of-life in patients with advanced cancer, combining health administrative data with hospital records: variations in practice call for routine quality evaluation. BMC Palliat Care. 2019;18(1):35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hui D, De La Rosa A, Bruera E. State of Integration of Palliative Care at National Cancer Institute-Designated and Nondesignated Cancer Centers. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(8):1292–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Gärtner J, Daun M, Wolf J, von Bergwelt-Baildon M, Hallek M. Early Palliative Care: Pro, but Please Be Precise! Oncol Res Treat. 2019;42(1–2):11–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang HL, Tsai JS, Yao CA, Cheng SY, Hu WY, Chiu TY. Shared decision making with oncologists and palliative care specialists effectively increases the documentation of the preferences for do not resuscitate and artificial nutrition and hydration in patients with advanced cancer: a model testing study. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19(1):17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

  28. Ethnography | Principles in Practice | Paul Atkinson | Taylor & Franci. [cited 2022 Jun 21]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203944769/ethnography-paul-atkinson.

  29. Poisson C, Mateus C, Sampetrean A, Renard P, Scotte F, Verret B, et al. Contribution of collegial support meetings (CSM) in the management of complex situations of patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. 2023;31(6):329.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mino JC, Legrand E, Gilbert E, Fogliarini A, Thery L, Dolbeault S, et al. L’HDJ de soins palliatifs dans le travail de trajectoire du cancer intraitable. Une recherche qualitative originale Médecine Palliat. 2023;22(1):23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, Aarts J, Barr PJ, Berger Z, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;6(359):j4891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Elwyn G, Lloyd A, May C, van der Weijden T, Stiggelbout A, Edwards A, et al. Collaborative deliberation: a model for patient care. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97(2):158–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Elwyn G, Vermunt NPCA. Goal-Based Shared Decision-Making: Developing an Integrated Model. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(5):688–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jackson K. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320(7227):114–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Guest G, MacQueen K, Namey E. Applied Thematic Analysis. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2012 [cited 2024 Apr 30]. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/applied-thematic-analysis.

  38. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Spinnewijn L, Aarts J, Verschuur S, Braat D, Gerrits T, Scheele F. Knowing what the patient wants: a hospital ethnography studying physician culture in shared decision making in the Netherlands. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):e032921.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Schipke T. The Chronic Sick Role: Its Time Has Come. Omega. 2021;83(3):470–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Driever EM, Tolhuizen IM, Duvivier RJ, Stiggelbout AM, Brand PLP. Why do medical residents prefer paternalistic decision making? An interview study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Gulbrandsen P, Clayman ML, Beach MC, Han PK, Boss EF, Ofstad EH, et al. Shared decision-making as an existential journey: Aiming for restored autonomous capacity. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(9):1505–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Andersen-Hollekim T, Melby L, Sand K, Gilstad H, Das A, Solbjør M. Shared decision-making in standardized cancer patient pathways in Norway—Narratives of patient experiences. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2021;24(5):1780–9.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Driever EM, Stiggelbout AM, Brand PLP. Shared decision making: Physicians’ preferred role, usual role and their perception of its key components. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(1):77–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Franjul Sánchez A, Fuentes Armesto AM, Briones Chávez C, Ruiz M. Revisiting Early Palliative Care for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies and Bone Marrow Transplant: Why the Delay? Cureus. 2020;12(9):e10504.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Mino JC, Cohen-Solal Z, Kentish-Barnes N. Arrêt des traitements et idéologies thérapeutiques du cancer. Anthropol Santé Rev Int Francoph Anthropol Santé . 2016. [cited 2022 Jul 20];(12). Available from: https://journals.openedition.org/anthropologiesante/2047.

  48. De Snoo-Trimp JC, Brom L, Pasman HRW, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Widdershoven GAM. Perspectives of Medical Specialists on Sharing Decisions in Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study Concerning Chemotherapy Decisions With Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma. Oncologist. 2015;20(10):1182–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Brom L, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Widdershoven GAM, Pasman HRW. Mechanisms that contribute to the tendency to continue chemotherapy in patients with advanced cancer. Qualitative observations in the clinical setting. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(3):1317–25.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kunneman M, Engelhardt EG, Ten Hove FLL, Marijnen CAM, Portielje JEA, Smets EMA, et al. Deciding about (neo-)adjuvant rectal and breast cancer treatment: Missed opportunities for shared decision making. Acta Oncol Stockh Swed. 2016;55(2):134–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wasp GT, Knutzen KE, Murray GF, Brody-Bizar OC, Liu MA, Pollak KI, et al. Systemic Therapy Decision Making in Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Oncologist Encounters. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18(8):e1357–66.

  52. Knutzen KE, Sacks OA, Brody-Bizar OC, Murray GF, Jain RH, Holdcroft LA, et al. Actual and Missed Opportunities for End-of-Life Care Discussions With Oncology Patients: A Qualitative Study. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(6):e2113193.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Dillon EC, Meehan A, Nasrallah C, Lai S, Colocci N, Luft H. Evolving Goals of Care Discussions as Described in Interviews With Individuals With Advanced Cancer and Oncology and Palliative Care Teams. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2021;38(7):785–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Beaussant Y, Mathieu-Nicot F, Pazart L, Tournigand C, Daneault S, Cretin E, et al. Is shared decision-making vanishing at the end-of-life? A descriptive and qualitative study of advanced cancer patients’ involvement in specific therapies decision-making. BMC Palliat Care. 2015;16(14):61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Melzer AC, Golden SE, Ono SS, Datta S, Crothers K, Slatore CG. What Exactly Is Shared Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(2):546–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Blankenburg R, Hilton JF, Yuan P, Rennke S, Monash B, Harman SM, et al. Shared Decision-Making During Inpatient Rounds: Opportunities for Improvement in Patient Engagement and Communication. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(7):453–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Vrinzen CEJ, Bloemendal HJ, Stuart E, Makady A, van Agthoven M, Koster M, et al. Cancer treatments touch a wide range of values that count for patients and other stakeholders: What are the implications for decision-making? Cancer Med. 2023;12(5):6105–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Noteboom EA, May AM, van der Wall E, de Wit NJ, Helsper CW. Patients’ preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment: A systematic review. Psychooncology. 2021;30(10):1663–79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Tamirisa NP, Goodwin JS, Kandalam A, Linder SK, Weller S, Turrubiate S, et al. Patient and physician views of shared decision making in cancer. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2017;20(6):1248–53.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Colombet I, Rigal L, Urtizberea M, Vinant P, Rouquette A. Validity of the French version of the Autonomy Preference Index and its adaptation for patients with advanced cancer. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227802.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Koot A, Netea-Maier R, Ottevanger P, Hermens R, Stalmeier P. Needs, Preferences, and Values during Different Treatment Decisions of Patients with Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. J Pers Med. 2021;11(7):682.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Hoerger M, Greer JA, Jackson VA, Park ER, Pirl WF, El-Jawahri A, et al. Defining the Elements of Early Palliative Care That Are Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes and the Delivery of End-of-Life Care. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2018;36(11):1096–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Back AL, Park ER, Greer JA, Jackson VA, Jacobsen JC, Gallagher ER, et al. Clinician roles in early integrated palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a qualitative study. J Palliat Med. 2014;17(11):1244–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Hannon B, Swami N, Pope A, Leighl N, Rodin G, Krzyzanowska M, et al. Early Palliative Care and Its Role in Oncology: A Qualitative Study. Oncologist. 2016;21(11):1387–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Gaertner J, Siemens W, Meerpohl JJ, Antes G, Meffert C, Xander C, et al. Effect of specialist palliative care services on quality of life in adults with advanced incurable illness in hospital, hospice, or community settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2017;4(357):j2925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Thomas TH, Jackson VA, Carlson H, Rinaldi S, Sousa A, Hansen A, et al. Communication Differences between Oncologists and Palliative Care Clinicians: A Qualitative Analysis of Early, Integrated Palliative Care in Patients with Advanced Cancer. J Palliat Med. 2019;22(1):41–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Laouisset C, Waechter L, Rossi A, Loureiro É, Bahyou S, Marchal T, et al. La décision d’arrêt des traitements spécifiques en oncologie. Soins. 2019;1(64):38–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Prod’homme C, Touzet L, Pierrat M, Chevalier L, Lesaffre H, Berthon C, et al. Can palliative care consultation increase integration of palliative care for patients with hematologic malignancies? Blood Adv. 2021;5(8):2123–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Spinnewijn L, Aarts J, Braat D, Baranov N, Sijtsma K, Ellis J, et al. Is it fun or is it hard? Studying physician-related attributes of shared decision-making by ranking case vignettes. PEC Innov. 2023;31(3):100208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Diamond-Brown L. The doctor-patient relationship as a toolkit for uncertain clinical decisions. Soc Sci Med. 2016;1982(159):108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Gidwani R, Nevedal A, Patel M, Blayney DW, Timko C, Ramchandran K, et al. The Appropriate Provision of Primary versus Specialist Palliative Care to Cancer Patients: Oncologists’ Perspectives. J Palliat Med. 2017;20(4):395–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Williams D, Edwards A, Wood F, Lloyd A, Brain K, Thomas N, et al. Ability of observer and self-report measures to capture shared decision-making in clinical practice in the UK: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e029485.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Griffioen IPM, Rietjens JAC, Melles M, Snelders D, Homs MYV, van Eijck CH, et al. The bigger picture of shared decision making: A service design perspective using the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer as a case. Cancer Med. 2021;10(17):5907–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. D’Ambruoso SF, Coscarelli A, Hurvitz S, Wenger N, Coniglio D, Donaldson D, et al. Use of a Shared Mental Model by a Team Composed of Oncology, Palliative Care, and Supportive Care Clinicians to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in a Patient With Advanced Cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(11):1039–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Baik D, Cho H, Masterson Creber RM. Examining Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision Making and Subsequent Patient Outcomes in Palliative Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2019;36(1):76–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Rabben J, Vivat B, Fossum M, Rohde GE. Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care: A systematic review and metasynthesis. Palliat Med. 2024;38(4):406–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Palliative Care Mobile Unit, General Hospital, Valenciennes, France

    Morgane Plançon

  2. Departement of Pain and Palliative Care Unit, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital, Paris, France

    Ashley Ridley

  3. Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 9193 - SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Lille, F 59000, France

    Kristopher Lamore

  4. Palliative Care Unit, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    Andréa Tarot

  5. Curie Institute, Paris, France

    Alexis Burnod

  6. Intensive Care Unit, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France

    François Blot

  7. Departement Recherche, Enseignement, Formation, Maison médicale Jeanne Garnier FR, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France

    Isabelle Colombet

  8. Centre Hospitalier de Valenciennes, Avenue Désandrouin, Valenciennes, 59322, France

    Morgane Plançon

Authors
  1. Morgane Plançon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashley Ridley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristopher Lamore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andréa Tarot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexis Burnod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. François Blot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Isabelle Colombet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MP designed the data collection tool, collected and analysed the data, drafted and revised the paper. AR analysed the data, drafted and revised the paper. KL revised the data collection tool, discussed and validated the data analysis data and revised the paper. AT analysed the data and revised the paper. AB, FB revised the paper. IC discussed and validated the data analysis and revised the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgane Plançon.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was validated by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Valenciennes Hospital Centre on 24 March 2022 under the reference Ref-CHV-2022–004.

All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The medical and nursing teams at the observation sites were informed about the study and gave their informed consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Plançon, M., Ridley, A., Lamore, K. et al. Is shared decision making an aspect of palliative care integration? An observation of collaboration between oncologists and palliative care professionals. BMC Palliat Care 23, 279 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12904-024-01608-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12904-024-01608-y

Keywords

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us