Prioritizing patient values—who/what matters most—is central to palliative care and critical to treatment decision making. Yet which factors are most important to family caregivers in these decisions remains understudied. Using data from a U.S. national survey of cancer caregivers (N = 1661), we examined differences in factors considered very important by caregivers when partnering with patients in cancer treatment decision making by cancer stage and caregiver sociodemographics. Fifteen factors were rated on a 4-point Likert-scale from ‘very unimportant’ to ‘very important.’ Descriptive statistics were used to characterize caregiver factors and tabulate proportions of importance for each. Generalized linear mixed effect modeling was used to examine the importance of factors by cancer stage, and chi-square analyses were performed to determine associations between caregiver sociodemographics and the five most commonly endorsed factors: quality of life (69%), physical well-being (68%), length of life (66%), emotional well-being (63%), and opinions/feelings of oncology team (59%). Significant associations (all p’s < 0.05) of small magnitude were found between the most endorsed factors and caregiver age, race, gender, and ethnicity, most especially ‘opinions/feelings of the oncology team’. Future work is needed to determine the best timing and approach for eliciting and effectively incorporating caregiver values and preferences into shared treatment decision making.

Purpose: Values are critical to how individuals make decisions and cope, yet the values of heart failure (HF) patients and their family caregivers (FCGs) remain understudied. We sought to report the state of the science on how values are discussed, reflected upon, and acted on by patients with HF, their FCGs, or both related to health-related decision making and coping. Method: A scoping review was conducted of empirical studies using the following keywords: “heart failure,” “values,” “decision-making,” and “coping.” PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched from inception to June 2022 in English. Included articles reported values as a key finding (outcome/theme) in their Results: Of 448 articles screened for eligibility, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve articles reported findings addressing patient values, 3 addressed patient and FCG values, and 1 addressed FCG values. Values were reported to influence patient self-care behaviors and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation decisions, although their prioritization varied across time and contexts. When prioritized values conflicted with recommended self-care activities, some patients modified their approach to achieving the value. Others modified or abandoned tasks in favor of the value and accompanying goals. Low motivation and alignment between unhealthy behaviors and values often led to nonadherent decisions. Five of 8 articles focusing on cardiac devices reported patient survival as the most prioritized value during implantation decisions. FCG values were rarely reported or evaluated separately from patient values. Patients leveraged several coping strategies, although the processes through which values affected coping was not described. Conclusions: Prioritized values influenced HF-related decisions, including self-care and LVAD implantation. While several articles reported on coping and values, none described processes through which values affect coping, which highlights a research gap. Highlights: Family caregiver values were rarely reported or evaluated separately from patient values, highlighting a gap in the literature.

Background: Values are broadly understood to have implications for how individuals make decisions and cope with serious illness stressors, yet it remains uncertain how patients and their family and friend caregivers discuss, reflect upon, and act on their values in the post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation context. This study aimed to explore the values elicitation experiences of patients with an LVAD in the post-implantation period. Methods: Qualitative descriptive study of LVAD recipients. Socio-demographics and patient resource use were analyzed using descriptive statistics and semi-structured interview data using thematic analysis. Adult (> 18 years) patients with an LVAD receiving care at an outpatient clinic in the Southeastern United States. Results: Interviewed patients (n = 27) were 30–76 years, 59% male, 67% non-Hispanic Black, 70% married/living with a partner, and 70% urban-dwelling. Three broad themes of patient values elicitation experiences emerged: 1) LVAD implantation prompts deep reflection about life and what is important, 2) patient values are communicated in various circumstances to convey personal goals and priorities to caregivers and clinicians, and 3) patients leverage their values for strength and guidance in navigating life post-LVAD implantation. LVAD implantation was an impactful experience often leading to reevaluation of patients’ values; these values became instrumental to making health decisions and coping with stressors during the post-LVAD implantation period. Patient values arose within broad, informal exchanges and focused, decision-making conversations with their caregiver and the healthcare team. Conclusions: Clinicians should consider assessing the values of patients post-implantation to facilitate shared understanding of their goals/priorities and identify potential changes in their coping.