Search

Background: Interventions with the potential for broad reach in ambulatory settings are necessary to achieve a life course approach to advance care planning.Objective: To examine the effect of a computer-tailored, behavioral health model-based intervention on the engagement of adults in advance care planning recruited from ambulatory care settings.Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial with participant-level analysis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03137459).Setting: 10 pairs of primary and selected specialty care practices matched on patient sociodemographic information.Participants: English-speaking adults aged 55 years or older; 454 adults at practices randomly assigned to usual care and 455 at practices randomly assigned to intervention.Intervention: Brief telephone or web-based assessment generating a mailed, individually tailored feedback report with a stage-matched brochure at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months.Measurements: The primary outcome was completion of the following 4 advance care planning activities at 6 months: identifying and communicating with a trusted person about views on quality versus quantity of life, assignment of a health care agent, completion of a living will, and ensuring that the documents are in the medical record-assessed by a blinded interviewer. Secondary outcomes were completion of individual advance care planning activities.Results: Participants were 64% women and 76% White. The mean age was 68.3 years (SD, 8.3). The predicted probability of completing all advance care planning activities in usual care sites was 8.2% (95% CI, 4.9% to 11.4%) versus 14.1% (CI, 11.0% to 17.2%) in intervention sites (adjusted risk difference, 5.2 percentage points [CI, 1.6 to 8.8 percentage points]). Prespecified subgroup analysis found no statistically significant interactions between the intervention and age, education, or race.Limitations: The study was done in a single region and excluded non-English speaking participants. No information was collected about nonparticipants.Conclusion: A brief, easily delivered, tailored print intervention increased participation in advance care planning in ambulatory care settings.Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Nursing Research and National Institute of Aging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE To understand how patients and providers weigh the risks and benefits of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for cancer pain. METHODS Researchers used VA approved audio-recording devices to record interviews. ATLAS t.i., a qualitative analysis software, was used for analysis of transcribed interview data. Participants included 20 Veteran patients and 20 interdisciplinary providers from primary care- and oncology-based practice settings. We conducted semistructured interviews and analyzed transcripts used thematic qualitative methods. Interviews explored factors that affect decision making about appropriateness of LTOT for cancer related pain. We saturated themes for providers and patients separately. RESULTS Factors affecting patient decision-making included influence from various information sources, persuasion from trusted providers, and sometimes deferral of the decision to their provider. Relative prioritization of pain management as the focal patient concern varied with some patients describing comparatively more fear of chemotherapy than opioid analgesics, comparatively more knowledge of opioids in relation to other drugs; patients expressed a preference to spend the limited time they have with their oncologist discussing cancer treatment rather than opioid use. Factors affecting provider decision making included prognosis, patient goals, patient characteristics, and provider experience and biases. Providers differed in how they weigh the relative importance of alleviating pain or avoiding opioids in the face of treating patients with cancer and histories of substance abuse. CONCLUSION Divergent perspectives on factors need to be considered when weighing risks and benefits. Policies and interventions should be designed to reduce variation in practice to promote equal access to adequate pain management. Improved shared decision-making initiatives will take advantage of patient decision-making factors and priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial providing individualized feedback reports to increase advance care planning (ACP) engagement in the primary care setting. DESIGN: Pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Two primary care practices selected for geographic colocation. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 55 years and older. INTERVENTION: Brief assessment of readiness to engage in (stage of change for) three ACP behaviors (healthcare agent assignment, communication with agent about quality vs quantity of life, and living will completion) generating an individualized feedback report, plus a stage‐matched brochure. MEASURES: Patient recruitment and retention, intervention delivery, baseline characteristics, and stage of change movement. RESULTS: Recruitment rates differed by practice. Several baseline sociodemographic characteristics differed between the 38 intervention and 41 control participants, including employment status, education, and communication with healthcare agent. Feedback was successfully delivered to all intervention participants, and over 90% of participants completed a 2‐month follow‐up. More intervention participants demonstrated progression in readiness than did control participants, without testing for statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot demonstrates opportunities and challenges of performing a clustered randomized controlled trial in primary care practices. Differences in the two practice populations highlight the challenges of matching sites. There was a signal for behavior change in the intervention group. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1917–1921, 2019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Advance care planning (ACP) is a key component of high-quality end-of-life care but is underused. Interventions based on models of behaviour change may fill an important gap in available programmes to increase ACP engagement. Such interventions are designed for broad outreach and flexibility in delivery. The purpose of the Sharing and Talking about My Preferences study is to examine the efficacy of three behaviour change approaches to increasing ACP engagement through two related randomised controlled trials being conducted in different settings (Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centre and community). Methods and analysis Eligible participants are 55 years or older. Participants in the community are being recruited in person in primary care and specialty outpatient practices and senior living sites, and participants in the VA are recruited by telephone. In the community, randomisation is at the level of the practice or site, with all persons at a given practice/site receiving either computer-tailored feedback with a behaviour stage-matched brochure (computer-tailored intervention (CTI)) or usual care. At the VA, randomisation is at the level of the participant and is stratified by the number of ACP behaviours completed at baseline. Participants are randomised to one of four groups: CTI, motivational interviewing, motivational enhancement therapy or usual care. The primary outcome is completion of four key ACP behaviours: identification of a surrogate decision maker, communication about goals, completing advance directives and ensuring documents are in the medical record. Analysis will be conducted using mixed effects models, taking into account the clustered randomisation for the community study. Ethics and randomisation The studies have been approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Boards and are being overseen by a Safety Monitoring Committee. The results of these studies will be disseminated to academic audiences and leadership in in the community and VA sites. Trial registration numbers NCT03137459 and NCT03103828. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives A key objective of advance care planning ( ACP) is improving surrogates' knowledge of patients' treatment goals. Little is known about whether ACP outside of a trial accomplishes this. The objective was to examine patient and surrogate reports of ACP engagement and associations with surrogate knowledge of goals. Design Cohort study Setting Primary care in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Participants 350 community-dwelling veterans age ≥55 years and the individual they would choose to make medical decisions on their behalf, interviewed separately. Measurements Treatment goals were assessed by veterans' ratings of 3 health states: severe physical disability, cognitive disability, and pain, as an acceptable or unacceptable result of treatment for severe illness. Surrogates had knowledge if they correctly predicted all 3 responses. Veterans and surrogates were asked about living will and health care proxy completion and communication about life-sustaining treatment and quality versus quantity of life ( QOL). Results Over 40% of dyads agreed that the veteran had not completed a living will or health care proxy and that there was no QOL communication. For each activity, sizeable proportions (18-34%) disagreed about participation. In dyads who agreed QOL communication had occurred, 30% of surrogates had knowledge, compared to 21% in dyads who agreed communication had not occurred and 15% in dyads who disagreed ( P = .01). This relationship persisted in multivariable analysis. Agreement about other ACP activities was not associated with knowledge. Conclusion Disagreement about ACP participation was common. Agreement about communication regarding QOL was modestly associated with surrogate knowledge of treatment goals. Eliciting surrogates' perspectives is critical to ACP. Even dyads who agree about participation may need additional support for successful engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To understand the perspectives of both patients and the person who would make medical decisions for them if they were unable (surrogates) on their participation in advance care planning ( ACP). Design Qualitative cross-sectional study. Setting Community. Participants Thirty-one veterans age 55 years and older and their surrogates. Measurements In interviews conducted with both the veteran and surrogate, they were asked to discuss their participation in four ACP activities: communication about life-sustaining treatment, communication about views on quality of life, completion of a living will, and appointment of a healthcare proxy. They were asked about barriers to and facilitators of ACP engagement. When they did not agree about engagement, they each provided their perspective on what they believed had or had not occurred. Results Many of the same barriers to and facilitators of engagement were discussed by both patients and surrogates. These included difficulty thinking about dying, differences in values, and experiences with others that demonstrated the ability of ACP to decrease burden or avoid conflict. Reasons for disagreements in perceptions about whether communication had occurred included surrogates' need for more detailed information, surrogates' lack of readiness to hear what the patient was saying, and surrogates' reliance on what they know about the patient. For some dyads, participation in the study prompted additional communication, resulting in a better shared understanding of ACP engagement. Conclusion Surrogates can both impede and facilitate engagement in ACP, and they can hold different perceptions from patients regarding this engagement. Efforts to promote ACP may be most successful if they assess and address both patients' and surrogates' attitudes and help to facilitate clear communication between them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article cites a study which determined the effect of different pretest pedaling cadences on power outcomes obtained during the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT). The study concluded that practitioners of the WAnT should instruct participants to maintain a moderate pedal cadence during 5 seconds before the test commences to avoid bias from software sampling and peripheral fatigue.