Culture is a priority for research in end-of-life care in Europe: a research agenda

CONTEXT

Culture has a profound influence on our understanding of what is appropriate care for patients at the end of life (EoL), but the evidence base is largely nonexistent.

OBJECTIVES

An international workshop was organized to compile a research agenda for cultural issues in EoL research, and assess challenges and implications of the integration of the culture concept in different contexts.

METHODS

Participant experts were identified from the expert network established through an Internet-based call for expertise on culture and EoL care and from meetings. The workshop comprised presentations of research priorities from country and disciplinary perspectives, and group discussions. Analysis used all data gathered in the workshop and applied standard qualitative techniques.

RESULTS

Thirty experts participated in the workshop and identified the following priorities for cross-cultural research: 1) clarifying the concepts of culture and cultural competence; 2) defining EoL in a context of social and cultural diversity, with a focus on concepts of EoL care and bioethics, experiences of receiving and giving EoL care, and care practices in different settings; and 3) developing appropriate methodologies and outcome measurements that address diversity.

CONCLUSION

This first pan-European meeting compiled a research agenda, identifying key areas for future research focusing on culture, diversity, and their operationalization. This requires international and multidisciplinary collaboration, which is necessary in the current efforts to synthesize best practices in EoL care.

Preferences for place of death if faced with advanced cancer: a population survey in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain

BACKGROUND

Cancer end-of-life care (EoLC) policies assume people want to die at home. We aimed to examine variations in preferences for place of death cross-nationally.

METHODS

A telephone survey of a random sample of individuals aged ≥16 in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. We determined where people would prefer to die if they had a serious illness such as advanced cancer, facilitating circumstances, personal values and experiences of illness, death and dying.

RESULTS

Of 9344 participants, between 51% (95% CI: 48% to 54%) in Portugal and 84% (95% CI: 82% to 86%) in the Netherlands would prefer to die at home. Cross-national analysis found there to be an influence of circumstances and values but not of experiences of illness, death and dying. Four factors were associated with a preference for home death in more than one country: younger age up to 70+ (Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain), increased importance of dying in the preferred place (England, Germany, Portugal, Spain), prioritizing keeping a positive attitude (Germany, Spain) and wanting to involve family in decisions if incapable (Flanders, Portugal).

CONCLUSIONS

At least two-thirds of people prefer a home death in all but one country studied. The strong association with personal values suggests keeping home care at the heart of cancer EoLC.

A critical review of advance directives in Germany: attitudes, use and healthcare professionals' compliance

OBJECTIVE

Recent legal changes in Germany make non-compliance with advance directives (ADs) a criminal offence. This article assesses the evidence on attitudes towards, use of, and physician compliance with ADs in Germany.

METHODS

Critical review: studies on ADs, identified from a systematic review of culture and end-of-life care in Germany (11 electronic databases, 3 journals, reference lists, and grey literature), were included. An interpretative synthesis of findings revealed cross-cutting themes.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies (1996-2009) were identified. Key themes were: awareness; utilization; compliance; and bindingness of ADs. There was a positive trend between awareness of ADs and study publication date. Use varied between patient groups (0.3-62%) and was low amongst the general population (2.5-10%). Fears about ADs' purpose and possible abuse were identified. Physician discomfort in discussing ADs and non-compliance were reported. Physicians preferred legally binding ADs, though conflicting results were reported for patients' desired level of bindingness.

CONCLUSION

Although there is increasing awareness of ADs in Germany, there remains low use, poor communication, fears of abuse, some non-compliance and contradictory evidence regarding desired bindingness.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Although legal changes will hopefully improve compliance, low awareness, communication difficulties and uncertainties surrounding ADs must be addressed if use is to increase.

Are we heading in the same direction? European and African doctors' and nurses' views and experiences regarding outcome measurement in palliative care

OBJECTIVE

To examine and compare doctors' and nurses' views and experiences regarding outcome measurement in palliative care, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

A web-based survey developed through expert review and piloting was conducted in Europe and Africa with palliative care professionals working in clinical care, audit and research.

RESULTS

The overall participation rate was 42% (663/1592) and the overall completion rate was 59% (392/663). Of these respondents, 196 were doctors (51% male, mean 47 years) and 104 were nurses (84% female, mean 45 years). Doctors' most common reported reasons for not using tools were time constraints followed by lack of training. For nurses, it was lack of training followed by time constraints. Provision of information and guidance influenced willingness to use measures. For those that used tools, most reported favourable outcome measurement experiences. Both prioritized brief PROMs, and measures that included physical and psychological domains. For clinical purposes, the main advantage for doctors was assessment/screening, and clinical decision making for nurses. For research, doctors were most influenced by a measure's comparability with national/international literature followed by its validation in palliative care. For nurses, validation in palliative care was followed by tool access.

CONCLUSION

Overall these respondents shared similar views and experiences, and both were influenced by similar factors. Multidisciplinary outcome measurement education and training is feasible and required. Multidimensional and brief PROMs that include physical and psychological domains need to be prioritized, and access to freely available, validated and translated tools is needed to ensure cross-national comparisons and coordination of international research.

Outcomes 'out of africa': the selection and implementation of outcome measures for palliative care in Africa

BACKGROUND

End-of-life care research across Africa is under-resourced and under-developed. A central issue in research in end-of-life care is the measurement of effects and outcomes of care on patients and families. Little is known about the experiences of health professionals' selection and implementation of outcome measures (OM) in clinical care, research, audit, or teaching in Africa.

METHODS

An online survey was undertaken of those using outcome measures across the region, as part of the PRISMA project. A questionnaire addressing the use of OMs was developed for a similar survey in Europe and adapted for Africa. Participants were sampled through the contacts database of APCA. Invitation emails were sent out in January 2010 and reminders in February 2010.

RESULTS

168/301 invited contacts (56%) from 24 countries responded, with 78 respondents having previously used OM (65% in clinical practice, 12% in research and 23% for both). Main reasons for not using OM were a lack of guidance/training on using and analysing OM, with 49% saying that they would use the tools if this was provided. 40% of those using OM in clinical practice used POS, and 80% used them to assess, evaluate and monitor change. The POS was also the main tool used in research, with the principle criteria for use being validation in Africa, access to the tool and time needed to complete it. Challenges to the use of tools were shortage of time and resources, lack of guidance and training for the professionals, poor health status of patients and complexity of OM. Researchers also have problems analysing OM data. The APCA African POS was the most common version of the POS used, and was reported as a valuable tool for measuring outcomes. Respondents indicated the ideal outcome tool should be short, multi-dimensional and easy to use.

CONCLUSION

This was the first survey on professionals' views on OM in Africa. It showed that the APCA African POS was the most frequently OM used. Training and support are needed to help professionals utilise OM in palliative care, and OMs have an ongoing and important role in palliative care in Africa.

Which questions of two commonly used multidimensional palliative care patient reported outcome measures are most useful? Results from the European and African PRISMA survey

AIM

To evaluate the views of clinicians and researchers on their use of outcome measures and which questions are most important in palliative and end-of-life care.

METHODS

Online survey of professionals working in clinical care, clinical audit and research in palliative care across Europe and Africa identified through national and international associations and databases. Questions focused on measures used, reasons and which questions were important in two commonly used multidimensional measures, the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS) and the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS).

RESULTS

The overall completion rate was 59% (392/663). Three outcome measures were commonly used by over one in four respondents for clinical practice and over one in 10 for research: the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), followed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the POS. Measures were used twice as often in clinical practice as in research. The main uses were similar: assessing patients' symptoms/needs (88% and 85% of POS and STAS users, respectively), monitoring changes (62%, 58%), evaluating care (61%, 48%) and assessing family needs (59%, 60%). Respondents rated the most important questions as pain, symptoms, emotional and family aspects. There were no differences in the choice of the most important questions between doctors and nurses or between researchers and clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

In palliative care, outcome measures often used in clinical practice are also often used in research. Questions relating to pain, symptoms, emotional needs and family concerns are consistently considered the most useful and important in palliative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

The PRISMA Symposium 1: outcome tool use. Disharmony in European outcomes research for palliative and advanced disease care: too many tools in practice

CONTEXT

As the European population ages and the number of cancer deaths annually increases, there is an urgent requirement to provide high-quality, effective care. The measurement of outcomes in advanced disease is complex, and to conduct comparative research and meta-analyses, appropriate tool selection is essential.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the outcome tools currently in use in end-of-life care (both clinically and for research) across Europe and investigate the preferred features of outcome tools from the perspective of those who select and apply them.

METHODS

A pan-European Internet-based survey of tool users was conducted in research and clinical populations. Respondents were asked to identify the tools they are using and describe ideal features of the measures. The study was conducted in accordance with guidance for best practice in web-based research.

RESULTS

Of the 311 participants who completed a survey, 99 tools in clinical care and audit, and 94 in research, were cited by less than 10 participants. Further data revealed that respondents require the number of potential tools to be rationalized and that brief tools are favored.

CONCLUSION

The selection of valid and appropriate tools for palliative care populations requires expert guidance and support to ensure that clinicians and researchers are collecting data that have validity and potential for comparison within and between populations and countries.

The use of two common palliative outcome measures in clinical care and research: a systematic review of POS and STAS

The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) and the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) are outcome measures assessing quality of care in palliative care patients. This review aims to appraise their use in clinical care and research. Five electronic databases were searched (February 2010) for original papers describing the validation or use of POS and/or STAS. Of the 83 papers included, 43 studies were on POS, 39 on STAS and one study using both. Eight STAS studies validated the original version, four an adaptation; 20 studies applied the STAS in another culture and 19 in other languages. POS papers reported included: 14 adapted POS versions, 12 translations of the POS and 15 studies of use in different cultures. Both measures have been used in cancer, HIV/AIDS and in mixed groups. POS has also been applied in neurological, kidney, pulmonary and heart disease. Both tools were used in different areas such as the evaluation of care or interventions, description of symptom prevalence and implementation of outcome measures in clinical practice. Overall, they seem to be well accepted tools for outcome measurement in palliative care, both in clinical care and research.

Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care--users' cry for help

Background

Patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) plays an increasingly important role in palliative care. A variety of measures exists and is used in clinical care, audit and research. However, little is known about professionals' views using these measures. The aim of this study is to describe the use and experiences of palliative care professionals with outcome measures.

Methods

A web-based online survey was conducted in Europe and Africa. Professionals working in clinical care, audit and research in palliative care were invited to the survey via national palliative care associations and various databases. Invitation e-mails were sent with a link to the questionnaire.

Results

Overall participation rate 42% (663/1592), overall completion rate 59% (392/663). The majority of respondents were female (63.4%), mean age 46 years (SD 9). 68.1% respondents from Europe and 73.3% from Africa had experiences with outcome measures in palliative care. Non-users reported time constraints, burden, lack of training and guidance as main reasons. In clinical care/audit, assessment of patients' situation, monitoring changes and evaluation of services were main reasons for use. Choice of OMs for research was influenced by validity of the instrument in palliative care and comparability with international literature. Main problems were related to patient characteristics, staff, and outcome measures. Participants expressed the need for more guidance and training in the use of PROMs.

Conclusions

Professionals need more support for the use and implementation of PROMs in clinical practice and research through training and guidance in order to improve patient care.

Constructing understandings of end-of-life care in Europe: a qualitative study involving cognitive interviewing with implications for cross-national surveys

BACKGROUND

Although national findings regarding people's end-of-life care (EoLC) preferences and priorities are available within Europe, a lack of research coordination between countries has meant that cross-national understandings of EoLC remain unknown.

PURPOSE

To (1) identify English and German understandings of EoLC within the context of an EoLC survey, and (2) to synthesise these understandings to aid interpretation of results from a cross-national survey.

METHODS

An inductive and interpretive two-phased sequential design involving (1) qualitative analysis of cognitive interview data from 15 English and 15 German respondents to develop country-related categories, and (2) qualitative synthesis to identify a conceptually coherent understanding of EoLC.

RESULTS

Open and axial coding resulted in six English and six German categories. Commonalities included (a) the importance of social and relational dimensions, (b) dynamic decision making comprising uncertainty, (c) a valuing of life's quality and quantity, and (d) expectations for holistic care involving autonomy, choice, and timely information from trusted professionals. Differences involved attention to practical matters, and thoughts about prolongation of life, preferred place of death, and the role of media and context. Synthesis resulted in four concepts with underlying coherence: expectations of a high standard of EoLC involving autonomy, choice, and context; evolving decision making amid anticipated change; thoughts about living and existing; and worldviews shaping EoLC preferences in real and hypothetical scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Individual and country-related diversity must be remembered when quantifying EoLC understandings. Inductive-interpretive analysis of cognitive interview data aids interpretation of survey findings. Cross-national research coordination and qualitative synthesis assists EoLC in Europe.

Individual breathlessness trajectories do not match summary trajectories in advanced cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a longitudinal study

Breathlessness is a distressing symptom in advanced disease. Little is known about the trajectories of this symptom over time and towards death. This study aimed to describe and compare the summary and individual trajectories of breathlessness and overall symptom burden over time and towards the end of life following patients with advanced cancer or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in inpatient and outpatient health care settings in Germany. The modified Borg Scale, Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form and Palliative Outcome Scale were used as outcome measures. Data were collected at baseline and then monthly over six months or until death. Forty-nine cancer and 60 COPD patients were included. Both groups had similar demographics. Thirty out of the 49 cancer and 6/60 COPD patients died, 7/49 cancer and 20/60 COPD patients dropped out due to physical deterioration or questionnaire fatigue. In cancer patients, breathlessness increased towards death. In COPD patients, breathlessness increased over time. Twenty-one cancer and 43 COPD patients provided data for individual breathlessness trajectories. These revealed wide individual variations with four different patterns: fluctuation, increasing, stable and decreasing breathlessness. Symptom trajectories on the population level reflecting the whole group mask individual variation, which is reflected in distinct symptom trajectories with different patterns.

A pan-European survey of research in end-of-life cancer care

Background

To date, there is no coordinated strategy for end-of-life (EOL) cancer care research in Europe. The PRISMA (Reflecting the Positive Diversities of European Priorities for Research and Measurement in End-of-life Care) project is aiming to develop a programme integrating research and measurement in EOL care. This survey aimed to map and describe present EOL cancer care research in Europe and to identify priorities and barriers.

Material and methods

A questionnaire of 62 questions was developed and 201 researchers in 41 European countries were invited to complete it online in May 2009. An open invitation to participate was posted on the internet.

Results

Invited contacts in 36 countries sent 127 replies; eight additional responses came through websites. A total of 127 responses were eligible for analysis. Respondents were 69 male and 58 female, mean age 49 (28–74) years; 85% of the scientific team leaders were physicians. Seventy-one of 127 research groups were located in a teaching hospital or cancer centre. Forty-five percent of the groups had only one to five members and 28% six to ten members. Sixty-three of 92 groups reported specific funding for EOL care research. Seventy-five percent of the groups had published papers in journals with impact factor ≤5 in the last 3 years; 8% had published in journals with impact factor >10. Forty-four out of 90 groups reported at least one completed Ph.D. in the last 3 years. The most frequently reported active research areas were pain, assessment and measurement tools, and last days of life and quality of death. Very similar areas—last days of life and quality of death, pain, fatigue and cachexia, and assessment and measurement tools—were ranked as the most important research priorities. The most important research barriers were lack of funding, lack of time, and insufficient knowledge/expertise.

Conclusions

Most research groups in EOL care are small. The few large groups (14%) had almost half of the reported publications, and more than half of the current Ph.D. students. There is a lack of a common strategy and coordination in EOL cancer care research and a great need for international collaboration.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-010-1048-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness of a hand-held fan for breathlessness: a randomised phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Breathlessness is common and distressing in advanced disease. This phase II study aimed to determine the use and acceptance of a hand-held fan (HHF) to relieve breathlessness, to test the effectiveness of the HHF and to evaluate the recruitment into the study.

METHODS

RCT embedded within a longitudinal study testing a HHF over time compared to a wristband. Patients were included in the longitudinal study when suffering from breathlessness due to advanced cancer or COPD III/IV and could opt in the RCT. Primary outcome was use of the HHF and the wristband after two months. Secondary outcomes were recruitment into the trial and change of breathlessness severity after two months, measured on the modified Borg scale. Baseline data were collected in a personal interview and follow-up data by monthly postal questionnaires.

RESULTS

109 patients were recruited in the longitudinal study of which 70 patients (64%) participated in the RCT. Non-participants had statistically significant less breathlessness (Borg mean 2.6 (SD 1.48) versus 3.7 (SD 1.83); p = 0.003) and a better functional status (Karnofsky status mean 61.9 (SD 11.2) versus 66.7 (SD 11.0); p = 0.03). Attrition due to drop out or death was high in both groups. After two months, about half of the patients used the HHF but only 20% the wristband without a statistical difference (Fisher's exact test p = 0.2). 9/16 patients judged the HHF as helpful after two months and 4/5 patients the wristband. There was no difference in mean breathlessness change scores between the HHF (Borg change score: mean 0.6 (SD 2.10)) and the wristband (mean 0.8 (SD 2.67)) after two months (p = 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Symptom burden and low functional status did not restrain patients from participation in the study. Finding a control for a visible intervention is challenging and needs careful consideration to what is acceptable to patients. The preliminary evidence of effectiveness of the HHF could not be proved. Patients often stopped using the HHF but a small group seemed to benefit which was not necessarily related to a relief in breathlessness. Therefore, more work is necessary on selecting and identifying those who might benefit from the HHF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01123902.

Benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in advanced malignant and non-malignant diseases in adults

BACKGROUND

Breathlessness is one of the most common symptoms experienced in the advanced stages of malignant and non-malignant disease. Benzodiazepines are widely used for the relief of breathlessness in advanced diseases and are regularly recommended in the literature. However, the evidence for their use for this symptom is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in patients with advanced disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched 14 electronic databases up to September 2009. We checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews, and websites. We contacted investigators and specialists in palliative care for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) assessing the effect of benzodiazepines in relieving breathlessness in patients with advanced stages of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), motor neurone disease (MND), and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed identified titles and abstracts. Three independent review authors performed assessment of all potentially relevant studies (full text), data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality. We carried out meta-analysis where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies were identified, including 200 analysed participants with advanced cancer and COPD. Analysis of all seven studies (including a meta-analysis of six out of seven studies) did not show a beneficial effect of benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in patients with advanced cancer and COPD. Furthermore, no significant effect could be observed in the prevention of breakthrough dyspnoea in cancer patients. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated no significant differences regarding type of benzodiazepine, dose, route and frequency of delivery, duration of treatment, or type of control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence for a beneficial effect of benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in patients with advanced cancer and COPD. There is a slight but non-significant trend towards a beneficial effect but the overall effect size is small. Benzodiazepines caused more drowsiness as an adverse effect compared to placebo, but less compared to morphine. These results justify considering benzodiazepines as a second or third-line treatment within an individual therapeutic trial, when opioids and non-pharmacological measures have failed to control breathlessness. Although a few good quality studies were included in this review, there is still a further need for well-conducted and adequately powered studies.