Search

Background: Advanced cancer affects people's lives, often causing stress, anxiety and depression. Peer mentor interventions are used to address psychosocial concerns, but their outcomes and effect are not known. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of delivering and investigating a novel peer mentor intervention to promote and maintain psychological wellbeing in people with advanced cancer., Methods: A mixed methods design incorporating a two-armed controlled trial (random allocation ratio 1:1) of a proactive peer mentor intervention plus usual care, vs. usual care alone, and a qualitative process evaluation. Peer mentors were recruited, trained, and matched with people with advanced cancer. Quantitative data assessed quality of life, coping styles, depression, social support and use of healthcare and other supports. Qualitative interviews probed experiences of the study and intervention., Results: Peer mentor training and numbers (n = 12) met feasibility targets. Patient participants (n = 12, from 181 eligible who received an information pack) were not recruited to feasibility targets. Those who entered the study demonstrated that intervention delivery and data collection were feasible. Outcome data must be treated with extreme caution due to small numbers, but indicate that the intervention may have a positive effect on quality of life., Conclusions: Peer mentor interventions are worthy of further study and researchers can learn from these feasibility data in planning participant recruitment and data collection strategies. Pragmatic trials, where the effectiveness of an intervention is tested in real-world routine practice, may be most appropriate. Peer mentor interventions may have merit in enabling survivors with advanced cancer cope with their disease., Trial Registration: The trial was prospectively registered 13.6.2016: ISRCTN10276684 .

Background: Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim of our study is to apply the MORECare classifications on reported attrition rates in trials., Methods: A systematic review was conducted and attrition classifications retrospectively applied. Four databases, EMBASE; Medline, CINHAL and PsychINFO, were searched for randomised controlled trials of palliative care populations from 01.01.2010 to 08.10.2016. This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to randomised controlled trials in palliative care, from January 1990 to early October 2016. We ran random-effect models with and without moderators and descriptive statistics to calculate rates of missing data., Results: One hundred nineteen trials showed a total attrition of 29% (95% CI 28 to 30%). We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to the 91 papers that contained sufficient information. The main reason for attrition was attrition due to death with a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random. We did not observe significant differences in missing data between total attrition in non-cancer patients (26%; 95% CI 18-34%) and cancer patients (24%; 95% CI 20-29%). There was significantly more missing data in outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22-36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10-23%). We noted increased attrition in trials with longer durations., Conclusion: Reporting the cause of attrition is useful in helping to understand trial results. Prospective reporting using the MORECare classifications should improve our understanding of future trials.

Background: Late adolescence and early adulthood is a period of highest incidence for onset of mental health problems. Transition to college environment has been associated with many risk factors such as the initial disruption-and subsequent irregularity-of the student's sleep and activity schedule. We tested the feasibility of using blue blocking glasses (BBG) at night in first year higher education students with sleep complaints, to obtain preliminary evidence for the impact of BBG on sleep, activity, and mood., Methods: Participants were 13 first year undergraduates (from 10 different academic courses) living on campus for the first time with sleep complaints/disorders confirmed at screening via the Duke Structured Interview Schedule for Sleep Disorders. We used a 2-week, balanced crossover design (BBG vs placebo glasses; participants were unaware which was the active intervention) with computer-generated random allocation. Exploratory analyses provided descriptive and frequency summaries to evaluate feasibility of the intervention., Results: Preliminary evidence supports the feasibility and acceptability of the trial; almost all screened participants consented and completed the protocol with high adherence; missing data were negligible. Additionally, the effectiveness of BBGs to enhance sleep, mood, and activity levels in young adults was supported., Conclusions: The results of this feasibility trial suggest that BBG have potential as an inexpensive and feasible intervention for reducing sleep and circadian dysregulation in young adult students. A larger trial, following this successfully implemented protocol, is necessary to fully test the efficacy of BBG., Competing Interests: The Faculty of Health and Medicine Research Ethics Committee (FHMREC), Lancaster University, approved the research protocol (UREC Reference: S2014/106). Consent to participate was obtained from participants.Not applicable.Drs. GPA, AVM, SJ and FL have no conflicts of interest to disclose. EAY has consulted with Joe Startup Technologies, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Western Psychological Services, and Pearson. BD has a licensing agreement with Lundbeck for the use of a psychosocial treatment manual for depression.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background: Clinical care alone at the end of life is unlikely to meet all needs. Volunteers are a key resource, acceptable to patients, but there is no evidence on care outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether support from a social action volunteer service is better than usual care at improving quality of life for adults in the last year of life., Methods: A pragmatic, multi-centre wait-list controlled trial, with participants randomly allocated to receive the volunteer support intervention either immediately or after a 4 week wait. Trained volunteers provided tailored face-to-face support including befriending, practical support and signposting to services, primarily provided within the home, typically for 2-3 hours per week. The primary outcome was rate of change of quality of life at 4 weeks (WHO QOL BREF, a general, culturally sensitive measure). Secondary outcomes included rate of change of quality of life at 8 weeks and Loneliness (De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), social support (mMOS-SS), and reported use of health and social care services at 4 and 8 weeks., Results: In total, 196 adults (61% (n = 109) female; mean age 72 years) were included in the study. No significant difference was found in main or secondary outcomes at 4 weeks. Rate of change of quality of life showed trends in favour of the intervention (physical quality of life domain: b = 3.98, CI, -0.38 to 8.34; psychological domain: b = 2.59, CI, -2.24 to 7.43; environmental domain: b = 3, CI, -4.13 to 4.91). Adjusted analyses to control for hours of volunteer input found significantly less decrease in physical quality of life in the intervention group (slope (b) 4.43, CI, 0.10 to 8.76). While the intervention also favoured the rate of change of emotional (b = -0.08; CI, -0.52 to 0.35) and social loneliness (b = -0.20; CI, -0.58 to 0.18), social support (b = 0.13; CI, -0.13 to 0.39), and reported use of health and social care professionals (b = 0.16; CI, -0.22 to 0.55), these were not statistically significant. No adverse events were reported., Conclusions: Clinicians can confidently refer to volunteer services at the end of life. Future research should focus on 'dose' to maximise likely impact., Trial Registration: The trial was prospectively registered. ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN12929812 , registered 20 May 2015.