Search

Background: Cancer and its treatment can severely affect sexual health. It is unknown how this may relate to the feelings of closeness between patients and their partners. Aim: To assess the association between sexual health and closeness in the relationship in couples coping with advanced cancer. Design: This study was part of a prospective multicentre longitudinal observational cohort study on experienced quality of care and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer and their relatives (eQuiPe). Setting/participants: Baseline data regarding sexual health and closeness in people with advanced cancer and their partners. Results: Out of the 566 dyads, 14 were same-sex couples. Especially male partners showed an interest in sex, but more than half of all patients and partners were not sexually active. Approximately one third experienced sexual dysfunction to be a problem but did not seek specialized support (<10%). There was a positive association between own sexual satisfaction and feelings of closeness in the relationship, which was stronger for partners compared to patients (p < 0.001). Sexual satisfaction of the other person was also related to own feelings of closeness (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Couples coping with advanced cancer clearly face challenges regarding sexual health but are not likely to seek specialized support. When discussing sexual health, it is crucial that health care professionals pay attention to the aspects of sexual health that may contribute to feeling close to each other and suggest specialized care if necessary. Trial registration: The eQuiPe study is registered as NTR6584 in the Netherlands Trial Register. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Worldwide, millions of people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers are experiencing physical and psychological distress. Psychosocial support and education can reduce distress and prevent avoidable healthcare resource use. To date, we lack knowledge from large-scale studies on which interventions generate positive outcomes for people with cancer and their informal caregivers' quality of life. This protocol describes the DIAdIC study that will evaluate the effectiveness of two psychosocial and educational interventions aimed at improving patient-family caregiver dyads' emotional functioning and self-efficacy. Methods: We will conduct an international multicenter three-arm randomized controlled trial in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In each country, 156 dyads (936 in total) of people with advanced cancer and their family caregiver will be randomized to one of the study arms: 1) a nurse-led face-to-face intervention (FOCUS+), 2) a web-based intervention (iFOCUS) or 3) a control group (care as usual). The two interventions offer tailored psychoeducational support for patient-family caregiver dyads. The nurse-led face-to-face intervention consists of two home visits and one online video session and the web-based intervention is completed independently by the patient-family caregiver dyad in four online sessions. The interventions are based on the FOCUS intervention, developed in the USA, that addresses five core components: family involvement, optimistic outlook, coping effectiveness, uncertainty reduction, and symptom management. The FOCUS intervention will be adapted to the European context. The primary outcomes are emotional functioning and self-efficacy of the patient and the family caregiver, respectively. The secondary outcomes are quality of life, benefits of illness, coping, dyadic communication, and ways of giving support of the patient and family caregiver. Discussion: DIAdIC aims to develop cost-effective interventions that integrate principles of early palliative care into standard care. The cross-country setup in six European countries allows for comparison of effectiveness of the interventions in different healthcare systems across Europe. By focusing on empowerment of the person with cancer and their family caregiver, the results of this RCT can contribute to the search for cost-effective novel interventions that can relieve constraints on professional healthcare. Trial registration: Registration on ClinicalTrials.gov on 12/11/2020, identifier NCT04626349. Date and version identifier: 20211209_DIAdIC_Protocol_Article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) has been suggested to improve the quality of life (QoL) and mental wellbeing in severely ill patients and their relatives. Aim: To investigate the effects of ACP among patients with lung, heart and cancer diseases with an estimated life-span of up to 12 months. Methods: Patients and relatives were randomised into two groups: one receiving usual care and one receiving ACP and usual care. Themes from the ACP discussion were documented in patients' electronic medical file. Participants completed self-reported questionnaires four to five weeks after randomisation. Findings: In total, 141 patients and 127 relatives participated. No significant differences were found according to outcomes. However, patients with non-malignant diseases had the highest level of anxiety and depression; these patients seemed to benefit the most from ACP, though not showing statistically significant results. Conclusion: No significant effects of ACP among patients with lung, heart, and cancer diseases and their relatives regarding HRQoL, anxiety, depression, and satisfaction with healthcare were found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with advanced cancer face difficulties with their everyday activities at home that may reduce their health-related quality of life. To address these difficulties, we developed the 'Cancer Home-Life Intervention'. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of the 'Cancer Home Life-Intervention' compared with usual care with regard to patients' performance of, and participation in, everyday activities, and their health-related quality of life. Design and intervention: A randomised controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02356627). The 'Cancer Home-Life Intervention' is a brief, tailored, occupational therapy-based and adaptive programme for people with advanced cancer targeting the performance of their prioritised everyday activities. Setting/participants: Home-living adults diagnosed with advanced cancer experiencing functional limitations were recruited from two Danish hospitals. They were assessed at baseline, and at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome was activities of daily living motor ability. Secondary outcomes were activities of daily living process ability, difficulty performing prioritised everyday activities, participation restrictions and health-related quality of life. Results: A total of 242 participants were randomised either to the intervention group (n = 121) or the control group (n = 121). No effect was found on the primary outcome (between-group mean change: -0.04 logits (95% confidence interval: -0.23 to 0.15); p = 0.69). Nor was any effect on the secondary outcomes observed. Conclusion: In most cases, the 'Cancer Home-Life Intervention' was delivered through only one home visit and one follow-up telephone contact, which not was effective in maintaining or improving participants' everyday activities and health-related quality of life. Future research should pay even more attention to intervention development and feasibility testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Beneficial effects of early palliative care have been found in advanced cancer, but the evidence is not unequivocal. Aim: To investigate the effect of early specialist palliative care among advanced cancer patients identified in oncology departments. Setting/participants: The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01348048) is a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing early referral to a specialist palliative care team plus standard care versus standard care alone. The planned sample size was 300. At five oncology departments, consecutive patients with advanced cancer were screened for palliative needs. Patients with scores exceeding a predefined threshold for problems with physical, emotional or role function, or nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnoea or lack of appetite according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) were eligible. The primary outcome was the change in each patient’s primary need (the most severe of the seven QLQ-C30 scales) at 3- and 8-week follow-up (0–100 scale). Five sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were change in the seven QLQ-C30 scales and survival. Results: Totally 145 patients were randomised to early specialist palliative care versus 152 to standard care. Early specialist palliative care showed no effect on the primary outcome of change in primary need (−4.9 points (95% confidence interval −11.3 to +1.5 points); p = 0.14). The sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Analyses of the secondary outcomes, including survival, also showed no differences, maybe with the exception of nausea/vomiting where early specialist palliative care might have had a beneficial effect. Conclusion: We did not observe beneficial or harmful effects of early specialist palliative care, but important beneficial effects cannot be excluded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To explore (1) the information obtained from related but conceptually different approaches to pain assessment and (2) the extent to which the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) can be used as a screening tool to predict patient-reported need for pain relief.Methods: Cancer patients randomly sampled from 56 hospital departments were included. Questionnaire items assessed patients' (a) pain experience using the EORTC QLQ-C30 pain scale and its two pain items separately (pain intensity and pain interference) and (b) pain burden and (c) need for pain relief using the Three-Levels-of-Needs Questionnaire (3LNQ).Results: Of the 2364 patients contacted by mail, 1447 (61 %) completed the questionnaires. Among these, 51 % reported at least "a little" pain on the pain intensity item. The number of patients reporting pain to be a burden was similar, and pain experience and pain burden were highly correlated (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.85 to 0.91). Pain experience and pain burden were moderately correlated with the need for pain relief. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the EORTC QLQ-C30 discriminated between patients with and without a need for pain relief to an acceptable degree (area under the curve (AUC) 0.73-0.77). The cut-point a little gave a sensitivity of 84 % and specificity of 59 % for the item "Have you had pain?" and a sensitivity of 72 % and a specificity of 72 % for the pain scale.Conclusions: The majority of patients who experienced pain felt it to be a problem. Pain experience and pain burden were substantially related to need for pain relief, and the latter could be predicted from the EORTC QLQ-C30. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advanced cancer patients experience considerable symptoms, problems, and needs. Early referral of these patients to specialized palliative care (SPC) could offer improvements. The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) investigates whether patients with metastatic cancer will benefit from being referred to 'early SPC'. DanPaCT is a multicenter, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial with 1:1 randomization. The planned sample size was 300 patients. The primary data collection for DanPaCT is finished. To prevent outcome reporting bias, selective reporting, and data-driven results, we present a detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) for DanPaCT here. Results: This SAP provides detailed descriptions of the statistical analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT. The primary outcome is the change in the patient's 'primary need'. The 'primary need' is a patient-individualised outcome representing the score of the symptom or problem that had the highest intensity out of seven at baseline assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes are the seven scales that are represented in the primary outcome, but each scale evaluated individually for all patients, and survival. The detailed description includes chosen significance levels, models for multiple imputations, sensitivity analyses and blinding. In addition, we discuss the patient-individualized primary outcome, blinding, missing data, multiplicity and the risk of bias. Conclusions: Only few trials have investigated the effects of SPC. To our knowledge DanPaCT is the first trial to investigate screening based 'early SPC' for patients with metastatic cancer from a broad spectrum of cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The aim of the study was to investigate the adequacy of help delivered by the healthcare system for 12 symptoms/problems in a national, randomly selected sample of advanced cancer patients in Denmark. Methods Advanced cancer patients ( n = 1630) from 54 hospital departments across Denmark received the 3-Levels-of-Needs Questionnaire (3LNQ). The 3LNQ measures 'problem burden', the degree to which a symptom or problem is perceived as a problem, and 'felt need', whether the patient receives adequate help. Prevalences were calculated for 'problems' (at least 'a little' of a problem), 'moderate/severe problems' (at least 'quite a bit' of a problem) and 'felt need' (inadequate help or no help despite wanting it). Results In total, 977 (60%) patients participated. The most frequent 'problems' were fatigue (73%; 'moderate/severe' 36%) and limitations doing physical activities (65%; 'moderate/severe' 36%). For the 12 symptoms/problems assessed the prevalence of 'felt need' was 11-35%. Of the patients who had received help, 34-74% viewed the help as inadequate. Of those who had not received help, 48-78% wished for help. Conclusion Advanced cancer patients are not receiving the help they need. Large proportions of patients were burdened by symptoms/problems. Of those who had received help, many viewed it as inadequate. Better symptom/problem identification and management is warranted for advanced cancer patients. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Context: To improve palliative care, it is important that questionnaires accurately assess the needs of the patients. No questionnaire existed that combined three different and important approaches to needs assessment. We developed such a questionnaire, called the Three-Levels-of-Needs Questionnaire (3LNQ), based on literature searches. The 3LNQ measures 12 important needs with three different approaches when used as a supplement to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): problem intensity, problem burden, and felt need. Objectives: To investigate the initial validity of the 3LNQ. Methods: We used a relatively new method that investigates whether the questionnaire has the same meaning for the patients as for the researchers. To do this, 74 patients with advanced cancer filled out the questionnaire and participated in an open-ended interview. The patients’ responses to the questionnaire before the interview were compared against the researchers’ responses based on the interviews. Items showing substantial agreement were accepted as valid without further analysis. For the remaining items, reasons for disagreements were analyzed qualitatively. Results: All items on problem intensity, eight of 12 items on problem burden, and three of 12 items on felt need were accepted as valid because of high agreement. Analysis of the qualitative data concerning the remaining items showed that most disagreements did not indicate problems with the patients’ self-assessment. Instead, different causes for disagreements were elucidated, but these did not interfere with validity. Conclusion: The 3LNQ appears to measure palliative needs comprehensively, and this initial validation showed satisfactory results. The analysis gave important insights into the patients’ perceptions of their own situations, into their expectations of the health care system, and into the complexity of needs assessment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]