Search

Purpose: Many patients prefer an active role in making decisions about their care and treatment, but participating in such decision-making is challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether patient-reported outcomes (quality of life and patient satisfaction), patients’ coping strategies, and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. Methods: We used baseline data from the ACTION trial of patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer from six European countries, including scores on the decision-making participation self-efficacy (DEPS) scale, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire, and the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to examine associations with self-efficacy scores. Results: The sample included 660 patients with a mean age of 66 years (SD 10). Patients had a mean score of 73 (SD 24) for self-efficacy. Problem-focused coping (B 1.41 (95% CI 0.77 to 2.06)), better quality of life (B 2.34 (95% CI 0.89 to 3.80)), and more patient satisfaction (B 7.59 (95% CI 5.61 to 9.56)) were associated with a higher level of self-efficacy. Patients in the Netherlands had a higher level of self-efficacy than patients in Belgium ((B 7.85 (95% CI 2.28 to 13.42)), whereas Italian patients had a lower level ((B −7.50 (95% CI −13.04 to −1.96)) than those in Belgium. Conclusion: Coping style, quality of life, and patient satisfaction with care were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. These factors are important to consider for healthcare professionals when supporting patients in decision-making processes.

Purpose: The participation rate in the Danish National Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer is around 60%. Since early detection of cancer through the colorectal cancer screening program (CRCS) reduces mortality rates, it is important to understand why people do not participate. The aim of this study was therefore to examine in depth why some people do not participate in the Danish CRCS program. Methods: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 people who had not participated in the national CRCS program. Data was analyzed using an inductive hermeneutic approach. Results: The analysis uncovered three main themes describing barriers to screening: (a) the accountability for ensuring personal health covered the following sub-themes: (i) when invitation is out of sight it is out of mind, (ii) aversion against own stool sample collection, and (iii) the perceived risk of getting colorectal cancer (CRC); (b) attitudes towards the healthcare system and its organization covered the following sub-themes: (i) positivity towards CRCS, (ii) trust in the healthcare system, (iii) lack of internal communication in the healthcare system, and (iv) wish for involvement of the general practitioner (GP); (c) knowledge about disease and screening covered the following sub-themes: (i) knowledge about CRC and CRCS, (ii) wish for information via new channels, and (iii) CRC is rarely something you talk about. Conclusion: Among the informants included in this study, lack of participation in the CRCS program was not due to an active opt-out, as most informants had intentions of participating. The informants thought it would motivate them to participate if their GP would remind them of the screening program.

BACKGROUND: The ACTION trial evaluated the effect of a modified version of the Respecting Choices´ advance care planning programme in patients with advanced cancer in six European countries. For this purpose, an advance directive acceptable for all six ACTION countries to be used for documenting the wishes and preferences of patients and as a communication tool between patients, their caregivers and healthcare staff, was needed.AIM: To describe the development of a multinational cancer specific advance directive, the ´My Preferences form´, which was first based on the 2005 Wisconsin 'Physician Orders of Life Sustaining Treatment´ Form, to be used within the ACTION trial.METHODS: Framework analysis of all textual data produced by members of the international project team during the development of the ACTION advance directives (e.g. drafts, emails, meeting minutes…).SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: ACTION consortium members (N = 28) with input from clinicians from participating hospitals (N = 13) and ´facilitators´ (N = 8) who were going to deliver the intervention.RESULTS: Ten versions of the ACTION advance directive, the ´My Preferences form´, were developed and circulated within the ACTION consortium. Extensive modifications took place; removal, addition, modification of themes and modification of clinical to lay terminology. The result was a thematically comprehensive advance directive to be used as a communication tool across the six European countries within the ACTION trial.CONCLUSION: This article shows the complex task of developing an advance directive suitable for cancer patients from six European countries; a process which required the resolution of several cross cultural differences in law, ethics, philosophy and practice. Our hope is that this paper can contribute to a deeper conceptual understanding of advance directives, their role in supporting decision making among patients approaching the end of life and be an inspiration

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the content of interventions provided in early specialised palliative care (SPC).OBJECTIVES: To characterise the content of interventions delivered in early SPC in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT), a multicentre trial with six participating sites.METHODS: A retrospective qualitative and quantitative study coding all new interventions initiated by the palliative teams and documented in the medical records during the 8-week study period of DanPaCT. Interventions were categorised according to (a) symptom/problem prompting the intervention, (b) type of intervention and (c) professional(s) providing the intervention.RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomised to the SPC teams. According to the medical records, patients received a median of 3.5 (range 0-22) new interventions in the 8-week intervention-period from the palliative teams. For 24 (18%) of the patients there was no documented interventions in the medical records. The most frequent symptom/problems treated were pain, (100 interventions; 20% of interventions given) and impaired physical function (62; 13% of interventions given). The most frequent type of intervention was pharmacological (232; 42% of interventions given).CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to meticulously investigate the content of interventions documented in the medical records for patients receiving early SPC. Diverse symptoms were treated with many different interventions. However, a relatively low number of interventions were documented. This may explain the lack of effect in DanPaCT but also questions whether all interventions were adequately documented TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01348048.

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. Discuss

BACKGROUND: Early and integrated specialized palliative care is often recommended but has still only been investigated in relatively few randomized clinical trials.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care on the explorative outcomes in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT).METHODS: We conducted a randomized multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial. Consecutive patients with metastatic cancer were included if they had symptoms or problems that exceeded a predefined threshold according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Outcomes were estimated as the differences between the intervention and the control groups in the change from baseline to the weighted mean of the 3- and 8-week follow-ups measured as areas under the curve.RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomized to early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus 152 to standard care only. Early specialized palliative care had no significant effect on any of the symptoms or problems. Of the 21 items addressing satisfaction, specialized palliative care improved the item 'overall satisfaction with the help received from the health care system' with 9 points (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 14.2, p = 0.0006) and three other items (all p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: In line with the analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT, we did not find that specialized palliative care, as provided in DanPaCT, affected symptoms and problems. However, patients in the intervention group seemed more satisfied with the health care received than those in the standard care group.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01348048.

Background Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce. Methods and findings To test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015–2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0–3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients’ age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients’ quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score −1.8 versus −0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p &lt