Search

BackgroundAlthough the Internet is commonly used to recruit samples in studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related risk behaviors, it has not been used to measure patient-reported well-being. As the burden of long-term chronic HIV infection rises, the Internet may offer enormous potential for recruitment to research and interventions. ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare two samples of gay men living with HIV, one recruited via the Web and the other recruited in outpatient settings, in terms of self-reported physical and psychological symptom burden. MethodsThe Internet sample was recruited from a UK-wide Web-based survey of gay men with diagnosed HIV. Of these, 154 respondents identified themselves as resident in London and were included in this analysis. The HIV clinic sample was recruited from five HIV outpatient clinics. Of these participants, 400 gay men recruited in London clinics were included in this analysis. ResultsThe Web-based sample was younger than the clinic sample (37.3 years, SD 7.0 vs 40.9 years, SD 8.3), more likely to be in paid employment (72.8%, 99/136 vs 60.1%, 227/378), less likely to be on antiretroviral therapy (ART) (58.4%, 90/154 vs 68.0%, 266/391), and had worse mean psychological symptom burden compared to the clinic sample (mean scores: 1.61, SD 1.09 vs 1.36, SD 0.96) but similar physical symptom burden (mean scores: 0.78, SD 0.65 vs 0.70, SD 0.74). In multivariable logistic regression, for the physical symptom burden model, adjusted for age, ethnicity, employment status, and ART use, the recruitment setting (ie, Web-based vs clinic) was not significantly associated with high physical symptom score. The only variable that remained significantly associated with high physical symptom score was employment status, with those in employment being less likely to report being in the upper (worst) physical symptom tertile versus the other two tertiles (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.62, P

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients in India prefer full information regarding diagnosis and prognosis, but evidence suggests poor insight. This study aimed to identify the role of health literacy among adult patients living with cancer, their families and health professionals in decision-making and treatment outcomes in India. METHODS: This cross-sectional in-depth study recruited patients, families and clinicians from three centers. Inductive thematic analysis informed a novel conceptual model. RESULTS: We recruited n = 34 cancer patients, n = 33 family members, n = 11 doctors and n = 14 nurses (N = 92). Principle emergent themes were the following: (1) Preferences and dynamics of diagnosis and prognosis disclosure, for example, the dominant preference was for families who held hope for cure to discourage disclosure; clinicians sometimes disclosed in line with perceived ability to pay for treatment. (2) Understanding of disease and its treatment options (etiology, potential trajectory, treatment options), for example, lay understandings of cancer etiology as contamination from outside the home, and reluctance of patients to ask questions of clinicians. (3) Priorities in decision-making, for example, not engaging patients due to fear of patient distress, patients initiated on anticancer treatments without knowledge or consent, pursuing futile treatments. (4) Anxieties over finances and outcomes (disclosure, decision-making, care pathways), for example, clinicians attempting to reduce families pursuing expensive and inappropriate treatment options with patients who have poor insight, catastrophic spending based on poor decisions. CONCLUSION: The novel evidence-based health literacy model offers potential for feasible and acceptable intervention to support families in communication, disclosure and decision-making. This may improve patients access to informed, appropriate care pathways.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been causing a high burden of suffering for patients and families. There is limited evidence on the preparedness of Indian palliative care services for the pandemic. AIM: This study aimed to assess the preparedness and capacity of Indian palliative care services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was developed based on prior evidence and international health regulations. It was emailed to the Indian Palliative Care Association members and investigators professional networks in India. One participant per palliative care service was requested. Descriptive analysis was used. RESULTS: Representatives of 78 palliative care services completed the survey. Three in four services had COVID-19 case definition and adapted their protocols for infection control (75%). About half of the services (55%) reported concerns about achieving appropriate hand hygiene in the community. More than half of the services (59%) had capacity to train nonspecialists for symptom control and psychological support. About half of the services reported that they had plans to redeploy staff (56%) and resources (53%) in the case of outbreaks. Two-fifths of the services used paper records to store an updated contact list of staff (40%) and did not have designated focal contacts for information update (40%). Staff anxiety related to personal infection risk and family care was relatively high (median score = 7 on a 1-10 scale). CONCLUSION: We recommend the following resource allocation to enable palliative care services to support the Indian health system in delivering essential care in this and future pandemics: (1) infection control, especially in the community; (2) training using existing clinical protocols to strengthen palliative care across the health system; and (3) redeployment plans.

IntroductionPalliative care is a clinically and cost-effective component of cancer services in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Despite the significant need for palliative cancer care in SSA, coverage remains inadequate. The exploration of digital health approaches could support increases in the quality and reach of palliative cancer care services in SSA. However, there is currently a lack of any theoretical underpinning or data to understand stakeholder drivers for digital health components in this context. This project addresses this gap through engaging with key stakeholders to determine data and information needs that could be supported through digital health interventions.Methods and analysisThis is a multicountry, cross-sectional, qualitative study conducted in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe. In-depth interviews will be conducted in patients with advanced cancer (n=20), caregivers (n=15), health professionals (n=20) and policy-makers (n=10) in each of the three participating countries. Data from a total of 195 interviews will transcribed verbatim and translated into English before being imported into NVivo software for deductive framework analysis. The analysis will seek to understand the acceptability and define mechanisms of patient-level data capture and usage via digital technologies.Ethics and disseminationEthics approvals have been obtained from the Institutional Review Boards of University of Leeds (Ref: MREC 18-032), Research Council of Zimbabwe (Ref: 03507), Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe (Ref: MRCZ/A/2421), Uganda Cancer Institute (Ref: 19-2018), Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (Ref: HS325ES) and College of Medicine University of Lagos (Ref: HREC/15/04/2015). The project seeks to determine optimal mechanisms for the design and development of subsequent digital health interventions to support development, access to, and delivery of palliative cancer care in SSA. Dissemination of these findings will occur through newsletters and press releases, conference presentations, peer-reviewed journals and social media.Trial registration numberISRCTN15727711.

IntroductionPalliative care coverage and opioid consumption in India are relatively low compared with global data. The literature suggests commonplace concealment and collusion in withholding information, but these hypotheses lack evidence.ObjectivesThis study aimed to develop an explanatory evidence-based model of stigma, communication and access to cancer palliative care in India that can be used to develop, test and implement future interventions.DesignThis cross-sectional qualitative study sampled advanced cancer patients (n=10), their family caregivers (n=10) and oncologists (n=10). Grounded theory procedures were utilised to analyse transcripts, and a theoretical model generated.SettingA tertiary teaching hospital in South India.ResultsThe model explains how stigma associated with communicating a diagnosis of advanced cancer is enacted by treating oncologists, family members and community. This leads to patient expectations of cure and futile treatment uptake. Patients commonly only present needs with respect to pain, not within psychological, social or spiritual domains, likely due to the lack of patients' insight into their diagnosis and prognosis. As a result of oncologists' and families' unwillingness to disclose the prognosis, and patient focus on pain due to their lack of insight, palliative care clinicians view their services as under-utilised, and patients perceive palliative care as a pain management service that is not 'different' from other clinical services. Advanced care needs and purchase of futile treatments lead to lost employment among families, increased family debt and high care costs, which are rarely disclosed due to their unwillingness to discuss their needs.ConclusionOur novel theoretical model is an essential first step to ensure that complex interventions are plausible, with mechanisms of action that address the needs of relevant stakeholders. A family-centred approach with an oncology workforce skilled in communication and an enabled patient population could increase access to palliative care, and improved outcomes may be attainable.

The Global Task Force on Chronic Pain in HIV published seven research priorities in the field of HIV-associated chronic pain in 2019: (1) causes; (2) management; (3) treatment individualization and integration with addiction treatment; (4) mental and social health factors; (5) prevalence; (6) treatment cost effectiveness; and (7) prevention. The current study used a web-based survey to determine whether the research topics were aligned with the priorities of adults with lived experiences of HIV and chronic pain. We also collected information about respondents' own pain and treatment experiences. We received 311 survey responses from mostly US-based respondents. Most respondents reported longstanding, moderate to severe, multisite pain, commonly accompanied by symptoms of anxiety and/or depression. The median number of pain treatments tried was 10 (IQR = 8, 13), with medications and exercise being the most common modalities, and opioids being viewed as the most helpful. Over 80% of respondents considered all research topics either "extremely important" or "very important". Research topic #2, which focused on optimizing management of pain in people with HIV, was accorded the greatest importance by respondents. These findings suggest good alignment between the priorities of researchers and US-based people with lived experience of HIV-associated chronic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Person‐centred care is a critical attribute of high‐quality healthcare, promoting quality of life, improving an individual's interaction with the health system and valuing people's social networks [1]. Lifesaving antiretroviral therapy [...]

BackgroundChronic pain occurs in up to 85% of persons living with HIV and is commonly treated with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). We investigated the impact of chronic pain and LTOT on HIV outcomes.MethodsThis was prospective cohort study conducted between July 2015 and July 2016 in 5 HIV primary care clinics. Chronic pain was defined as ≥moderate pain for ≥3 months on the Brief Chronic Pain Questionnaire. Chronic pain and LTOT were assessed at an index visit. Suboptimal retention, defined as at least one "no-show" to primary care, and virologic failure were measured over the subsequent year. Multivariable logistic regression models were built for each outcome adjusting for site.ResultsAmong 2334 participants, 25% had chronic pain, 27% had suboptimal retention, 12% had virologic failure, and 19% were prescribed LTOT. Among individuals not on LTOT, chronic pain was associated with increased odds of suboptimal retention [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10 to 1.93, P = 0.009] and virologic failure (aOR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.80, P < 0.001). Among individuals with chronic pain, there was no association between LTOT and retention, but LTOT was associated with lower rates of virologic failure (aOR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.96, P = 0.03).ConclusionsChronic pain in participants not on LTOT was associated with virologic failure. This reinforces the need to identify effective chronic pain treatments for persons living with HIV and investigate their impact on HIV outcomes. The apparent protective association between LTOT and virologic failure in those with pain merits further exploration.