Skip to main content
Download PDF

Oncologists’ palliative care referral behaviour: testing utility of social exchange theory as an explanatory framework

BMC Palliative Care volume 23, Article number: 183 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Adults and children with cancer are referred to palliative care infrequently or late. Oncologists often gatekeep these referrals. Social exchange theory is used to explain physician referral behaviour in various clinical settings. Its utility in a cancer palliative care setting is not known.

Methods

We used Karl Popper’s hypothetico-deductive approach to test the hypothesis. The hypothesis was that social exchange theory is a helpful framework for explaining oncologists’ palliative care referral behaviour in a cancer setting. The utility of the theoretical framework was tested against the empiric findings of a systematic review and original research.

Results

Most components of social exchange theory known to explain physician referral behaviour like beliefs about the provider or service, emotions triggered during the professional engagement, its symbolism and stigma, the complexity of the referral task, efforts needed to achieve it, its cost, benefit, and value were similar in a cancer setting. Empirical findings suggest that oncologists provided strategies and solutions to better palliative care integration instead of comparing their existing engagement with potential alternatives and choosing them.

Conclusion

Social exchange theory was found to be helpful in explaining oncologists’ palliative care referral behaviour. To further develop the social exchange theory based on the data used to test it, it is recommended to include feedback and solutions as a component of the theoretical framework alongside a comparison level for alternatives.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

People of all ages with cancer worldwide are not referred to palliative care as often as they should be, and the referrals that do occur happen very late in the patient’s life [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This problem is even more pronounced in low-middle-income countries [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Due to the higher cure potential in a paediatric oncology setting, many children with cancer only receive palliative care in the very last days of their lives [2, 4, 13, 14]. A systematic review showed that, internationally, the median time between palliative care referral and death is only 19 days [15]. Many children with cancer who need palliative care don’t have access to it [16, 17]. Patients often continue receiving cancer treatments until the end, which can impede symptom management and end-of-life care. [4, 5, 14, 18]. Delayed palliative care referrals often hinder communication and shared decision-making processes [3, 19, 20] and may also lead to unnecessary invasive medical interventions at the end of life [5, 21] and increased in-hospital deaths [4, 5, 21, 22].

A wide range of factors might influence healthcare professionals’ behaviours, decision-making and clinical practice [23]. Theory-driven approaches are often used to understand and predict clinicians’ behaviour in healthcare [24]. The social exchange theory has been used to explain physician referral behaviour in various healthcare settings [25,26,27,28,29]. However, its usefulness in a cancer palliative care setting is not known. In this study, we explored the utility of social exchange theory as an explanatory framework to describe oncologists’ palliative care referral behaviour to hospital-based specialist palliative care teams in a cancer care setting.

Methods

Our hypothesis was that social exchange theory is a helpful framework for explaining oncologists’ palliative care referral behaviour in a cancer setting, and the hypothetico-deductive method was used to test this contention. [30]. The hypothetico-deductive approach enables the exploration of how data contributes to testing a hypothesis and its role in confirming or undermining it [30]. Furthermore, it formalises and demonstrates the relationship between the hypothesis and the data [30]. In a hypothetico-deductive method, an established theoretical framework is tested against the data collected through observations [31]. Using empirical evidence allows for testing, modifying, and rejecting a theoretical framework [32]. The premise of Karl Popper’s scientific philosophy is that all dogmas and theories should be tested and cautioned against their uncritical adoption [33]. Furthermore, the researchers are confronted with data that needs explanation. Testable hypotheses are deduced from existing theories, and scientific data can be used to test a hypothesis. Confirmed hypotheses are kept or modified, and falsified ones are rejected [34]. Therefore, we chose Popper’s hypothetico-deductive method for our scientific inquiry. Karl Popper’s hypothetico-deductive approach has seven steps, detailed in the next section [35].

Results

Step 1: Identifying a broad problem area

Broad problem area: Timely palliative care referral in a cancer setting

Research has shown that both adults and children benefit from timely referral. It improved quality of life, enhanced symptom control, bettered communication, informed treatment decision-making, advance care planning, end-of-life care, and reduced costs [36,37,38,39,40,41]. In a cancer care setting, oncologists may act as gatekeepers, and their gatekeeping behaviour can either help or impede referrals to palliative care [42, 43]. Studies have indicated that gatekeeping behaviours may involve delaying a referral for palliative care until the end of a potentially curative treatment or only making a referral when explicitly requested by the patient’s family [44,45,46]. Additionally, it has been revealed that oncologists prefer controlling and coordinating the care process of their patients at every stage of their illness trajectories, including the referral process [47,48,49,50,51,52]. Therefore, it’s essential to comprehend oncologists’ referral behaviour in a cancer setting to improve engagement and early integration of services.

Step 2: Defining a problem statement

Problem statement: Referral behaviour of oncologists underpins timely palliative care referrals

This research focused on the significance of timely referrals for palliative care and how oncologists’ behaviour affects this process. It considers the social and cultural context and all stakeholders’ viewpoints on healthcare referrals [43]. Understanding their perspectives on what promotes or impedes referrals can inform changes in policies and practices that have the potential to address health disparities and bring about transformative improvements [53]. In some healthcare settings, social exchange theory has been used before to explain how physicians make referrals [25,26,27,28,29]. These studies showed a strong correlation between referral exchange behaviour and the principles of social exchange theory, which is described in Table 1. However, none of these studies was conducted in a cancer care setting. In this study, we tested the utility of social exchange theory as a framework for explaining oncologists’ referral behaviour in a cancer palliative care setting using a systematic review [54] and original research [55] conducted by the authors of this paper.

Table 1 Components of Social Exchange Theory
Full size table

Step 3: Develop a hypothesis

Hypothesis: Social exchange theory is useful for explaining oncologists’ palliative care referral behaviour in a cancer setting

Referring patients in a healthcare setting is a form of social interaction that involves sharing responsibility for patient care between the referrer and referee, which can be explained through social exchange behaviour [28, 29]. Social exchange theory explains how people’s social behaviour is influenced by the possibility of gaining or losing something of value through an exchange [56]. Social interactions are usually seen as a means for individuals to fulfil their needs, seek rewards and avoid costs [56]. The components included in the social exchange process are detailed in Table 1.

Steps 4,5 and 6: Determining measures for hypothesis testing, data collection and analysis

Measures for hypothesis testing, data collection and analysis

The hypothesis was tested using a systematic review [54] and original research [55] conducted by the authors of this paper. The data collection and analysis of these two measures are described below.

We conducted a systematic review [54] to answer the question: “What do oncologists and haematologists think about referring patients to palliative care?” We looked at studies published in English that involved human subjects from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2019. The studies we included focused on the opinions of oncologists, haematologists, and cancer specialists regarding referring patients to palliative care in a cancer care setting. To ensure review quality, we assessed the methodological rigour of all studies using Hawker’s tool [57]. Only studies with a score of 19 or higher were included. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, quality appraisal, and data extraction. This review used various evidence, including surveys and qualitative and mixed-method studies. We chose Popay’s narrative synthesis to analyse study findings, ideal for identifying common themes from textual data gathered through surveys and qualitative studies [58]. Furthermore, Popay’s method enables using a theoretical framework for interpreting study findings [58]. After reviewing a database of 9336 citations, we found 23 relevant studies for our synthesis. Through this process, we developed five themes related to presuppositions held by oncologists and haematologists, power dynamics and trust issues, challenges in making a palliative care referral, weighing the costs and benefits of a referral, and strategies to facilitate the referral process [54].

A qualitative study [55] was conducted to study the views of cancer specialists on aspects that either support or impede palliative care referral in paediatric oncology. We recruited 22 oncologists and haematologists who manage children with cancer from 13 tertiary cancer centres. We chose these centres based on three criteria: they offer paediatric oncology and haematology services, they have oncologists and haematologists who manage children with cancer, and they provide palliative care services. We gathered research data through individual face-to-face semi-structured qualitative interviews and analysed the data using Braun and Clarke’s Reflexive Thematic Analysis method [59]. Through data analysis, we have generated four key themes: attitudes and ideas regarding palliative care and referrals, the steps involved in referring a patient to palliative care, assessing the advantages and disadvantages of referral, and creating successful approaches for incorporating palliative care into paediatric oncology [55].

Step 7.1: Data interpretation and theory evaluation

The findings of the systematic review [54] and the original research [55] were used to test the hypothesis; the data was interpreted using the social exchange theory.

Human cognition and emotions

Human cognition is an essential motivation for social exchange that goes beyond the process or outcome of the exchange [60]. The social actors are emotive and cognising, and the emotions experienced by the social actors act as an internal reinforcement for the exchange behaviour [61]. However, sentiments go beyond emotions, representing an affective state or feeling where emotions are linked to a social object or social unit [62]. It is a social construct that leads to an affective response, which is the psychological state of the social actor [63]. The presupposition is an implicit assumption or belief about a phenomenon [64]. Presuppositions trigger cognitive responses that impact decision-making and social behaviour [65].

Oncologists hold certain beliefs about the reliability of palliative care providers, as shown in both review and research studies [54, 55]. Trust is a cognitive process that involves one person expecting another to be trustworthy [66]. Trustworthiness is believing in someone’s ability, reliability, integrity, resourcefulness, and benevolence [67]. In both review and research findings, oncologists emphasised the importance of competence-based trust when referring patients to another person or team for effective task performance [68].

The study [55] brought out benevolence as a facet of trustworthiness. Being benevolent means doing good and being kind. [69]. In the study [55], oncologists felt that some palliative care providers were less benevolent due to a perceived lack of empathy and a lacklustre approach. The study [55] noted that social actors’ identities impact trustworthiness, cognition, and exchange behaviour [62].

In the review [54], oncologists reported feeling confident in their ability to provide care. However, the study [55] found that many oncologists had mixed feelings about their ability to respond to these needs appropriately. Perceived self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in their ability to perform a task to meet their and others’ expectations [70]. This belief impacts cognitive and emotional processes, social behaviour and actions [70]. The study [55] found that only a few oncologists felt confident providing palliative care. Most acknowledged the benefits of referring patients to palliative care but recognised their limitations in providing these services due to a lack of skills and knowledge. This awareness of their limitations and self-efficacy influenced their referral behaviours.

Emotions triggered by task activities are central to social exchange behaviour [61]. The exchange process can trigger a host of emotions. Some are general feelings like pleasure or dissatisfaction, while others are specific feelings like anger, shame, trust, confidence, gratitude or pride [71]. The exchange outcomes also produce emotions that influence the social actor’s commitment to the exchange process [71]. A positive emotion triggered will encourage the social actor to repeat the experience, whereas a negative emotion may deter future participation in the exchange process [71].

The review found that [54] some oncologists experienced negative emotions such as therapeutic failure, abandonment, and a break in the therapeutic relationship when referring patients to palliative care. It could also lead to a loss of hope and hinder future engagement. On the other hand, the study [55] found that positive feedback from families about the quality of palliative care services was seen as a reinforcement for future referrals by oncologists.

Power, status and expectations

In social exchange, the social actor making the referral retains the reward power, whereas another social actor is rewarded with the referral if they meet the expectations of the referrer [72]. In the study [55], oncologists made a referral to palliative care if those services met referrer expectations and agreed with the line of management advised by referring oncologists. This one-sided dependency leads to asymmetrical relationships where the person receiving the referral must comply with the person’s wishes for making the referral [72]. and can lead to coercive power, in which a social actor obtains compliance from another [72]. This phenomenon was observed in our review [54] and research [55] findings. The oncologists wanted to oversee and manage the patient’s care throughout the illness, even when palliative care providers were involved. They desired to maintain control over the patient. It is an example of a social actor using their status or superior attributes to command compliance. [73].

Expert power is where the social actor believes they have expert skills and knowledge in a domain not possessed by another social actor, and legitimate power is derived from the virtue of their position [74]. According to our study [55], oncologists’ qualifications and experience influenced their decisions to refer patients. Due to their training, oncologists believed they were more qualified and experienced than palliative care providers. They also felt they had the authority to control and coordinate all referral activities [63]. The review supported the study findings [54], which showed that oncologists had the power to control the referral process and saw palliative care referral as interference in their care process, leading them to gatekeep the process.

Symbolism and stigma

Exchange behaviour also has a symbolic perspective where social actors interact and communicate about a phenomenon using symbolic inferences [63]. In the review [54], oncologists believed that referring patients to palliative care signified a loss of hope, a disconnection in the therapeutic relationship, and abandonment. In the study [55], oncologists compared the relationship between themselves and their patients to that of a family. They saw palliative care referral as equivalent to handing a family member to someone else, indicating a failure in treatment and letting down the patient. Oncologists also observed that families saw palliative care referral as an indication of a change in the patient’s condition, a shift in treatment goals, or the possibility that the patient may not recover.

Stigma is a complex phenomenon characterised by stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination [75]. In the study [55] and review [54] findings, Oncologists hesitated to recommend palliative care due to its negative association with death. Public stigma refers to stereotyped thoughts based on general opinion [76]. Oncologists felt that this public stigma leads families to avoid considering palliative care. According to the study [55], both families and oncologists have unfavourable views of palliative care, with oncologists avoiding the term altogether as it can induce fear and symbolise a loss of hope. Label avoidance stigma occurs when someone avoids a particular management strategy because of the negative connotations that come with its name [77]. In the review [54] and the study [55], label avoidance stigma is also an issue as some oncologists avoid the term palliative care altogether, as it requires them to explain the concept to families. Furthermore, the perception of public stigma and label avoidance stigma can give oncologists the power to exclude palliative care providers from the care process [78].

Task and efforts

The effort needed to complete a task impacts future exchange [62]. The contribution of a social actor towards the task is influenced by how fairly the effort-to-reward ratio is perceived [79]. Should this balance be unequal, the social actor’s interest in the exchange relationship may decrease [80]. Consequently, the social actor’s perception of the effort-to-reward ratio moderates social exchange behaviour [81].

In both review [54] and the study [55], oncologists found it challenging to make a referral for palliative care due to the many illness-related factors they had to consider. It includes aspects like progression of the disease, any complications, the stage of the illness, the presence of symptoms, the potential for a cure, the intent of treatment, the patient’s prognosis, and their performance status. It was a significant effort to navigate this complex set of factors [54, 55].

Reward, cost, profit and value

Reinforcement is the act of selectively repeating a behaviour [56]. In social exchange relationships, reinforcement is a crucial concept, as it is closely tied to rewards, costs, profits, and value [82]. Socially significant actions will not be repeated unless reinforced [82]. Various rewards are discussed from a social exchange perspective [83]. These are not limited to physiological or materialistic benefits but can help fulfil higher self-actualisation needs [83].

The rewards from certain behaviours are connected to the immediate outcomes of those actions, which can impact future interactions [83]. Social actors first notice these rewards because they result from short-term associations [83]. In the review [54] and the study [55], oncologists appreciated behavioural rewards such as pain and symptom management, improved quality of life, better family coping, support for decision-making and advance care planning. The study [55] found that they appreciated the support provided by palliative care services for children at home during the terminal phase of the illness.

The benefits of having a continuous and extended relationship with others are known as relational rewards [83]. However, sometimes these rewards may not be immediately apparent due to the long-term nature of the relationship [83]. Some oncologists participating in the study [55] believed that a collaborative relationship could improve oncologists’ productivity, reduce stress, improve treatment outcomes, and share responsibility for care. Saving the oncologists’ time was the only relational reward noted in the review [54]. Self-actualisation rewards can bring about personal growth [83]. Self-actualisation rewards were only seen in the study findings [55]. A few oncologists reported that their association with palliative care had improved their symptom management and prognostication skills and their ability to empathise and show compassion.

When engaging in social exchange, the cost refers to the loss sustained in pursuing rewards [84]. It can be seen as either removing a positive reinforcer or applying a negative reinforcer [63]. If the cost is too high, it may cause the social actor to opt out of the exchange or choose an alternative [63]. The frequency of an activity is directly related to its cost, with more costly activities being undertaken less often. Profit, on the other hand, is the reward minus the cost. As long as the social actor stands to gain from the exchange, the process may continue [63]. The review [54] and the study [55] found that palliative care referrals can sometimes lead to confusion and mixed messages for the patient’s family. It occurs when the palliative care team provides conflicting information about the patient’s clinical condition, prognosis, and outcomes, leading to a disadvantage for the oncologists.

In addition to considering rewards, costs, and profits, social actors also consider the value of exchange [83]. This value is determined by the satisfaction the social actor derives from the activity and the positive emotions experienced during the exchange with another social actor [63]. Beyond the immediate and relational rewards, in the study [55], oncologists felt that early palliative care provides value to both patients and their families, as it helps build rapport with the palliative care team, ensures smooth transitions of care, and allows for symptom control and supportive care during cancer treatment. Additionally, it benefits oncologists by providing a reliable partner in the care process with whom they can trust, work with, and share responsibilities. The reciprocity norm dictates that the benefit received should be returned, and the provider should not be harmed [63]. Oncologists participating in the study [55] felt that palliative care providers should feel valued. According to the oncologists, palliative care providers should be valued and included as part of the oncology team to improve family acceptance of palliative care [55]. These align with earlier findings corresponding to power relationships and cost. By inviting palliative care providers to be part of the oncology team, oncologists can avoid sending mixed messages to patients and their families, which they identified as a cost of palliative care referral.

Discussion

Social exchange theory [56] was initially only used to explain economic transactions in business relationships [85] and has faced criticism for having overlapping concepts and inadequate characterisation of domains and for portraying exchanges as purely economic [86, 87]. Despite this, the theory has since been applied to describe various human relationships outside economic contexts [88,89,90,91]. Social exchange theory has been previously used to understand physician referral behaviour in different clinical settings [25,26,27,28,29]. This is the first paper studying the utility of social exchange theory in a cancer setting by exploring oncologists’ palliative care referral behaviour.

We aimed to determine if social exchange theory could explain oncologists’ referral behaviour for palliative care [56]. Using a theoretical framework can assist in better comprehending and interpreting study or review results [92]. Evaluating a theory based on the data is essential, and empirical findings from a systematic review or study may either support, reject, or adjust the theory with an explanation [93]. We assessed the social exchange theory’s relevance to cancer palliative care using a systematic review [54] and original research [55].

Step 7.2. Theory revision underpinned by data analysis

In this step the social exchange theory was evaluated in the light of empiric findings and modifications to theory was suggested. The first three study themes [55] and the initial four review themes [54] mentioned before fit well with social exchange theory [56]. However, when it came to discussing the strategies provided by oncologists to improve palliative care integration, we felt that social exchange theory was insufficient. As a result, we would like to suggest a critique and modification to the theory [56].

According to the social exchange theory, there are two levels of appraisal: the comparison level and the comparison level for alternatives [94, 95]. The comparison level evaluates the benefits and costs of social exchange, while the comparison level for alternatives involves considering other potential relationships that may be more rewarding [94, 95]. Social actors determine their level of satisfaction with a relationship based on the comparison level, and they remain committed to it as long as it is more profitable than other alternatives [63]. This decision depends on their knowledge of other relationships and the potential rewards and costs associated with them [94].

In the systematic review [54] and study findings [55], oncologists appraised the exchange relationship regarding benefit and cost. However, they did not discuss the possibility of choosing an alternative approach to referral or palliative care services for their patients. Instead, they provided strategies through which relationships between oncology and palliative care teams can be fostered and bettered, and the exchange process of referral may be improved. Sometimes, people may continue with a relationship due to a lack of better options or dependence [96, 97]. However, in both the systematic review [54] and study findings [55], the oncologists valued the benefits of the relationship and provided strategies to integrate the teams. Therefore, it is suggested that adding feedback and solutions alongside a comparison level for alternatives represents a modification to the social exchange theory resulting from the systematic review data [54] and original research [55] (See Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Suggested modification to the social exchange theory

Full size image

Limitation and strengths

In the systematic review [54], The review analysed different types of studies, such as surveys, qualitative studies, and mixed methods studies, and found similar results. Furthermore, studies included in the review had participants from various oncology backgrounds and locations. The systematic review used to test social exchange theory had 21 primary studies from adult oncology and only two from paediatric oncology. Moreover, the data from the original study [55] used for theory testing had only paediatric oncologists as the participants. Therefore, the generalisability of findings to either adult or paediatric settings might be challenging, which could be a limitation. Furthermore, the systematic review [54] and the original research [55] focused on referral behaviour from the oncologists’ perspective but did not consider the views of family members, palliative care providers, or other organizational factors.

Conclusion

In a cancer care setting, oncologists play a role in determining whether or not a patient is referred to palliative care. Social exchange theory has been used to explain physician referral behaviour in various healthcare settings other than cancer. Popper’s hypothetico-deductive method demonstrated the utility of social exchange theory as an explanatory framework to describe oncologists’ palliative care referral behaviour in a cancer setting. Most of the findings of the systematic review [54] and the original research [55] used to test the hypothesis correlated well with the tenets of social exchange theory. However, social exchange theory was limited by its lack of utility in interpreting study [55] and review [54] findings concerning strategies provided by the oncologists to enhance palliative care integration. Therefore, a theory revision is suggested by adding feedback and solutions alongside a comparison level for alternatives representing a modification to the social exchange theory resulting from the data used to test the hypothesis.

Data availability

The data produced or examined during this research has been incorporated into the published article.

References

  1. Fraser LK, Miller M, McKinney PA, Parslow RC, Feltbower RG. Referral to a specialist paediatric palliative care service in oncology patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011;56(4):677–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnston DL, Vadeboncoeur C. Palliative care consultation in pediatric oncology. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(4):799–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Levine DR, Johnson LM, Snyder A, Wiser RK, Gibson D, Kane JR, et al. Integrating palliative care in pediatric oncology: evidence for an evolving paradigm for comprehensive cancer care. JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14(6):741–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Menon BS, Mohamed M, Juraida E, Ibrahim H. Pediatric cancer deaths: curative or palliative? J Palliat Med. 2008;11(10):1301–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tzuh Tang S, Hung YN, Liu TW, Lin DT, Chen YC, Wu SC, et al. Pediatric end-of-life care for Taiwanese children who died as a result of cancer from 2001 through 2006. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(7):890–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ullrich CK, Lehmann L, London WB, Guo D, Sridharan M, Koch R, et al. End-of-life care patterns Associated with Pediatric Palliative Care among children who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016;22(6):1049–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Adusumilli P, Nayak L, Viswanath V, Digumarti L, Digumarti RR. Palliative care and end-of-life measure outcomes: experience of a tertiary care institute from South India. South Asian J Cancer. 2018;7(3):210–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Atreya S. Referral patterns of Gynecological Cancer patients to a Palliative Medicine Unit: a 2 years retrospective analysis. Indian J Palliat Care. 2017;23(4):409–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Chatterjee A, Nimje G, Jain PN. Referral pattern to a Tertiary Care Cancer Pain Clinic in India. J Pain Palliat Care Pharm. 2019;33(1–2):6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ghoshal A, Salins N, Damani A, Deodhar J, Muckaden M. Specialist pediatric palliative care referral practices in pediatric oncology: a large 5-year retrospective audit. Indian J Palliat Care. 2016;22(3):266–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sharma K, Mohanti BK, Rath GK, Bhatnagar S. Pattern of palliative care, pain management and referral trends in patients receiving radiotherapy at a tertiary cancer center. Indian J Palliat Care. 2009;15(2):148–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sinha S, Matharu JK, Jacob J, Palat G, Brun E, Wiebe T, et al. Cancer Treatment and End-of-Life Care. J Palliat Med. 2018;21(8):1100–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Feudtner C, Kang TI, Hexem KR, Friedrichsdorf SJ, Osenga K, Siden H, et al. Pediatric palliative care patients: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Pediatrics. 2011;127(6):1094–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jalmsell L, Kreicbergs U, Onelöv E, Steineck G, Henter J-I. Symptoms affecting children with malignancies during the last month of life: a nationwide follow-up. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1314–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jordan RI, Allsop MJ, ElMokhallalati Y, Jackson CE, Edwards HL, Chapman EJ et al. Duration of palliative care before death in international routine practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2020;18(1).

  16. Clark D, Centeno C, Clelland D, Garralda E, López-Fidalgo J, Downing J, et al. In: Connor SR, editor. How are palliative care services developing worldwide to address the unmet need for care? London, UK: Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Downing J, Boucher S, Daniels A, Nkosi B. Paediatric Palliative Care in Resource-Poor Countries. Child (Basel Switzerland). 2018;5(2):27.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rost M, Acheson E, Kühne T, Ansari M, Pacurari N, Brazzola P, et al. Palliative care in Swiss pediatric oncology settings: a retrospective analysis of medical records. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(8):2707–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bradshaw G, Hinds PS, Lensing S, Gattuso JS, Razzouk BI. Cancer-related deaths in children and adolescents. J Palliat Med. 2005;8(1):86–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. De Graves S, Aranda S. Exploring documentation of end-of-life care of children with cancer. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2002;8(9):435–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Howell DA, Shellens R, Roman E, Garry AC, Patmore R, Howard MR. Haematological malignancy: are patients appropriately referred for specialist palliative and hospice care? A systematic review and meta-analysis of published data. Palliat Med. 2011;25(6):630–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fowler K, Poehling K, Billheimer D, Hamilton R, Wu H, Mulder J, et al. Hospice referral practices for children with cancer: a survey of pediatric oncologists. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(7):1099–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Godin G, Bélanger-Gravel A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Healthcare professionals’ intentions and behaviours: a systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implement Sci. 2008;3(1):36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Matthew B, Perkins MD, Peter MBA, Jensen S, James Jaccard MD, Peter Gollwitzer PD, Gabriele Oettingen PD, Elizabeth Pappadopulos PD. Applying theory-driven approaches to understanding and modifying clinicians’ behavior: what do we know? Psychiatric Serv. 2007;58(3):342–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Byrd ME. Social exchange as a framework for client-nurse interaction during public health nursing maternal-child home visits. Public Health Nurs. 2006;23(3):271–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grembowski DE, Cook K, Patrick DL, Roussel AE. Managed care and physician referral. Med Care Res Rev. 1998;55(1):3–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lamb GS. Two explanations of nurse practitioner interactions and participatory decision making with physicians. Res Nurs Health. 1991;14(5):379–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Prizer LP, Gay JL, Perkins MM, Wilson MG, Emerson KG, Glass AP, et al. Using social exchange theory to understand non-terminal palliative care referral practices for Parkinson’s disease patients. Palliat Med. 2017;31(9):861–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shortell SM. Determinants of physician referral rates: an exchange theory approach. Med Care. 1974;12(1):13–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sprenger J. Hypothetico-deductive confirmation. Philos Compass. 2011;6(7):497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tariq MU. Hypothetico-deductive method: a comparative analysis. JOBARI. 2015;7:228–31.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fardet A, Lebredonchel L, Rock E. Empirico-inductive and/or hypothetico-deductive methods in food science and nutrition research: which one to favor for a better global health? Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2021:1–14.

  33. Popper KR. What is Dialectic? Mind. 1940;49(196):403–26.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mahootian F, Eastman TE. Complementary frameworks of Scientific Inquiry: Hypothetico-Deductive, Hypothetico-Inductive, and observational-inductive. World Futures. 2009;65(1):61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Martini C. Hypothetico-Deductive Method. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory. 2017:1–3.

  36. Brumley R, Enguidanos S, Jamison P, Seitz R, Morgenstern N, Saito S, et al. Increased satisfaction with care and lower costs: results of a randomized trial of in-home palliative care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(7):993–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Greer JA, Pirl WF, Jackson VA, Muzikansky A, Lennes IT, Heist RS, et al. Effect of early palliative care on chemotherapy use and end-of-life care in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(4):394–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mitchell S, Slowther A-M, Coad J, Bertaud S, Dale J. Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of palliative care to children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions: a qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of healthcare professionals. Arch Dis Child. 2021:archdischild–2021.

  39. 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 

  40. Weaver MS, Rosenberg AR, Tager J, Wichman CS, Wiener L. A Summary of Pediatric Palliative Care Team Structure and Services as reported by centers Caring for Children with Cancer. J Palliat Med. 2018;21(4):452–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Zernikow B, Szybalski K, Hübner-Möhler B, Wager J, Paulussen M, Lassay L, et al. Specialized pediatric palliative care services for children dying from cancer: a repeated cohort study on the developments of symptom management and quality of care over a 10-year period. Palliat Med. 2019;33(3):381–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Dalberg T, McNinch NL, Friebert S. Perceptions of barriers and facilitators to early integration of pediatric palliative care: a national survey of pediatric oncology providers. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65(6):e26996.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kars MC, van Thiel GJ, van der Graaf R, Moors M, de Graeff A, van Delden JJ. A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research. Palliat Med. 2016;30(6):533–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nyirő J, Zörgő S, Enikő F, Hegedűs K, Hauser P. The timing and circumstances of the implementation of pediatric palliative care in Hungarian pediatric oncology. Eur J Pediatr. 2018;177(8):1173–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Prod’homme C, Jacquemin D, Touzet L, Aubry R, Daneault S, Knoops L. Barriers to end-of-life discussions among hematologists: a qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2018;32(5):1021–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sarradon-Eck A, Besle S, Troian J, Capodano G, Mancini J. Understanding the barriers to Introducing Early Palliative Care for patients with Advanced Cancer: a qualitative study. J Palliat Med. 2019;22(5):508–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cherny NI, Catane R. Attitudes of medical oncologists toward palliative care for patients with advanced and incurable cancer: report on a survery by the European Society of Medical Oncology Taskforce on Palliative and supportive care. Cancer. 2003;98(11):2502–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hay CM, Lefkowits C, Crowley-Matoka M, Bakitas MA, Clark LH, Duska LR, et al. Gynecologic oncologist views influencing referral to Outpatient Specialty Palliative Care. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27(3):588–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Horlait M, Chambaere K, Pardon K, Deliens L, Van Belle S. What are the barriers faced by medical oncologists in initiating discussion of palliative care? A qualitative study in Flanders, Belgium. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(9):3873–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rhondali W, Burt S, Wittenberg-Lyles E, Bruera E, Dalal S. Medical oncologists’ perception of palliative care programs and the impact of name change to supportive care on communication with patients during the referral process. A qualitative study. Palliat Support Care. 2013;11(5):397–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Schenker Y, Crowley-Matoka M, Dohan D, Rabow MW, Smith CB, White DB, et al. Oncologist factors that influence referrals to subspecialty palliative care clinics. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(2):e37–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wright B, Forbes K. Haematologists’ perceptions of palliative care and specialist palliative care referral: a qualitative study. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2017;7(1):39–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. McGorty EK, Bornstein BH. Barriers to physicians’ decisions to discuss hospice: insights gained from the United States hospice model. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9(3):363–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Salins N, Ghoshal A, Hughes S, Preston N. How views of oncologists and haematologists impacts palliative care referral: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19(1):175.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Salins N, Hughes S, Preston N. Presuppositions, cost-benefit, collaboration, and competency impacts palliative care referral in paediatric oncology: a qualitative study. BMC Palliat Care. 2022;21(1):215.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Ekeh PP. Social exchange theory: The two traditions: Heinemann London; 1974. Pages 127–132 p.

  57. Hawker S, Payne S, Kerr C, Hardey M, Powell J. Appraising the evidence: reviewing disparate data systematically. Qual Health Res. 2002;12(9):1284–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme version. 2006;1:b92.

  59. Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019. pp. 843–60.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  60. Poonamallee L, Goltz S, editors. Beyond Social Exchange Theory: An Integrative Look at Transcendent Mental Models for Engagement 2012 p64.

  61. Lawler EJ, Thye SR, editors. Social Exchange Theory of Emotions 2006 p281-282.

  62. Lawler EJ. An affect theory of social exchange. Am J Sociol. 2001;107(2):321–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Cook KS, Hahn M. Social exchange theory: current status and future directions. Theoretical Sociol. 2021:179–205.

  64. Simons M. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. Semant Linguistic Theory. 2013;11:329–48.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Domaneschi F, Carrea E, Penco C, Greco A. The cognitive load of presupposition triggers: mandatory and optional repairs in presupposition failure. Lang Cognition Neurosci. 2014;29:136–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Nunkoo R, Ramkissoon H. Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Annals Tourism Res. 2012;39:997–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kim S, Kuo M-H. Examining the relationships among Coaching, trustworthiness, and role behaviors: a Social Exchange Perspective. J Appl Behav Sci. 2015;51(2):152–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lee H. The role of competency based trust and organizational identification in continuous improvement. J Managerial Psychol. 2004;19:623–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Colquitt J, Rodell JB. Justice, Trust, and trustworthiness: a longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Acad Manag J. 2011;54:1183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Maddux JE. Self-efficacy. Interpersonal and intrapersonal expectancies: Routledge; 2016. pp. 41 – 6.

  71. Lawler EJ, Thye SR, BRINGING, EMOTIONS INTO SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY. Rev Sociol. 1999;25:217–44.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Cook KS, Cheshire C, Rice ER, Nakagawa S. Social exchange theory. Handbook of social psychology. 2013:61–88.

  73. Emerson R. Social exchange theory, annual review of sociology. Annuals Reviews. 1976 p335.

  74. Yukl G, Falbe CM. Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. J Appl Psychol. 1991;76:416–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Major B, O brien L. The social psychology of stigma. Ann Rev Psychol. 2005;56:393–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Vogel DL, Bitman RL, Hammer J, Wade N. Is stigma internalized? The longitudinal impact of public stigma on self-stigma. J Couns Psychol. 2013;60 2:311–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Smith RA, Hipper TJ. Label management: investigating how confidants encourage the use of communication strategies to avoid stigmatization. Health Commun. 2010;25(5):410–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Link BG, Phelan J. Stigma power. Soc Sci Med. 2014;103:24–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Cropanzano R, Anthony EL, Daniels SR, Hall AV. Social exchange theory: a critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad Manag Ann. 2017;11(1):479–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lin T-C, Huang C-C. Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: the role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Inf Manag. 2010;47:188–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Janssen O. Job demands, perceptions of efforî reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. J Occup Organizational Psychol. 2000;73:287–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Burns T. A structural theory of Social Exchange. Acta Sociol. 1973;16(3):188–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Stafford L. Social Exchange Theories: Calculating the Rewards and Costs of Personal Relationships. 2008. pp. 377 – 90.

  84. Homans GC. Social behavior as exchange. Am J Sociol. 1958;63(6):597–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Lambe CJ, Wittmann CM, Spekman RE. Social Exchange Theory and Research on Business-to-business Relational Exchange. J Business-to-Business Mark. 2001;8(3):1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Davies PS. Logical reasoning and domain specificity - A critique of the social exchange theory of reasoning. Biology Philos. 1995;10(1):1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Adongo R, Kim S, Elliot S. Give and take: a social exchange perspective on festival stakeholder relations. Annals Tourism Res. 2019.

  88. Bishop JW, Scott KD. An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(3):439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Bowling NA, Beehr TA, Swader WM. Giving and receiving social support at work: the roles of personality and reciprocity. J Vocat Behav. 2005;67(3):476–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Nakonezny PA, Denton WH. Marital relationships: a Social Exchange Theory Perspective. Am J Family Therapy. 2008;36(5):402–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Ward C, Berno T. Beyond social exchange theory: attitudes toward tourists. Annals Tourism Res. 2011;38(4):1556–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Fletcher AJ. Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(2):181–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Zhang T, Critical Realism. A critical evaluation. Social Epistemology. 2023;37(1):15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Thibaut J, Kelley H. Social exchange theory. A first look at communication theory. 2008:196–205.

  95. Smith RH, Diener E, Garonzik R. The roles of outcome satisfaction and comparison alternatives in envy. Br J Soc Psychol. 1990;29(3):247–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Gelles RJ. An exchange/social control theory. The dark side of families: Current family violence research. 1983:151 – 65.

  97. Sabatelli RM, Cecil-Pigo EF. Relational interdependence and commitment in marriage. J Marriage Fam. 1985:931–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Tata Trusts, Narotam Sekhsaria Foundation, Hamied Foundation, and Cipla Foundation for supporting this study. We also extend our thanks to faculty of Lancaster University and Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, for their invaluable assistance, both directly and indirectly, in our research.

Funding

Naveen Salins expresses gratitude for the support given by the Tata Trusts, Narotam Sekhsaria Foundation, Hamied Foundation, and Cipla Foundation in conducting this study. However, Nancy Preston and Sean Hughes received no funding for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Palliative Medicine and Supportive Care, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

    Naveen Salins

  2. Division of Health Research, Health Innovation One, Sir John Fisher Drive, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4AT, United Kingdom

    Sean Hughes & Nancy Preston

Authors
  1. Naveen Salins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sean Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nancy Preston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NS, SH, and NP contributed towards formulating the research and review questions and developing review and research protocols. NS, SH, and NP contributed equally towards the systematic review. NS conducted all the research interviews and coded the transcripts. NS, SH, and NP contributed towards data analysis and theme generation. All authors contributed equally towards manuscript writing. The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, and all the authors meet ICJME requirements for authorship.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naveen Salins.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research conducted in this study was approved by the Indian (KMC/KH IEC 292/2018) and the United Kingdom (FHMREC Lancaster University 17089/2018) ethics committees. Prior to taking part in the research, each participant gave written consent after being fully informed about the study. The authors affirm that all procedures were carried out in accordance with the applicable guidelines and regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki.

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 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salins, N., Hughes, S. & Preston, N. Oncologists’ palliative care referral behaviour: testing utility of social exchange theory as an explanatory framework. BMC Palliat Care 23, 183 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01517-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01517-0

Keywords

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us