A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research

Family Caregiver Participation in Palliative Care Research: Challenging the Myth

CONTEXT

Despite international guidelines emphasizing consumer-directed care and autonomous decisions in research participation, there is a common myth that research can be an additional and unwanted burden on patients and their family members.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the experiences and impact of research involvement on family caregivers (FCs) of terminally ill people, focusing within home-based palliative care.

METHODS

Three hundred sixteen of 322 participants (98.1%), who completed an FC support intervention through a stepped-wedge cluster trial (Australia, 2012-2015), participated in a postintervention telephone interview on their study experiences, which included quantitative and qualitative questions.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven percent of both the control (n = 89) and intervention (n = 227) groups perceived positive aspects, whereas almost all did not report any negative aspects of being involved in this research; the majority rated their involvement as very/extremely beneficial (control 77%; intervention 83%). The qualitative analysis generated three major themes: "intrapersonal-inward directed"; "connection with others-outward directed"; and "interpersonal-participant-researcher relationship."

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided quantitative and qualitative evidence challenging the myth. In contrast to health professional concerns, FCs appreciated the opportunity to participate and benefited from their involvement in research. Research protocols need to be specifically tailored to the needs of family caregivers and include debriefing opportunities for all participants at the end of intervention studies, regardless of which group they have been assigned. Strategies that facilitate health professionals' understanding of the research and risk benefits may help reduce gatekeeping and improve the validity of research findings.

"If I had stayed back home, I would not be alive any more…" - Exploring end-of-life preferences in patients with migration background

BACKGROUND

In patients with life-limiting conditions and a history of migration, a higher risk of not dying at home and limited access to palliative care services has been reported.

AIM

To explore the views and end-of-life preferences of patients with a migration history in Germany and to identify migration specific themes.

DESIGN

Two-armed study using Kaufmann's 'understanding interview' ('focused interview') method and grounded theory approach. Thematic content analysis was applied using MaxQDA 12 software.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Migrant and non-migrant adult patients with far advanced, life-limiting disease receiving palliative care in different specialist level settings (specialist home palliative care, palliative care inpatient unit, inpatient hospice).

RESULTS

The 37 interviewees (19 native Germans and 18 patients from Europe and the U.S., Israel, Turkey, and Indonesia) expressed eleven themes covering health care- and patient-related issues, of which four emerged to be specific for migrants: worse survival in home country; the perception of an altered identity and 'not belonging'; language skills as prerequisite to survive; and longing for 'home' while being attached to Germany. From these categories, three overarching themes were derived: (1) a limited understanding of the concept of 'palliative care'; (2) the suppression of end of life discussions for its association with suffering and loss of autonomy; and (3) the significance of complex individual migration histories.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings, the concept of a 'double home' experience is proposed. Barriers to access to palliative care should be minimized for all patients while cultural stereotyping has to be avoided.

Study protocol of the TIRED study: a randomised controlled trial comparing either graded exercise therapy for severe fatigue or cognitive behaviour therapy with usual care in patients with incurable cancer

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom for patients with incurable cancer receiving systemic treatment with palliative intent. There is evidence that non-pharmacological interventions such as graded exercise therapy (GET) or cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) reduce cancer-related fatigue in disease-free cancer patients and in patients receiving treatment with curative intent. These interventions may also result in a reduction of fatigue in patients receiving treatment with palliative intent, by improving physical fitness (GET) or changing fatigue-related cognitions and behaviour (CBT). The primary aim of our study is to assess the efficacy of GET or CBT compared to usual care (UC) in reducing fatigue in patients with incurable cancer.

METHODS

The TIRED study is a multicentre three-armed randomised controlled trial (RCT) for incurable cancer patients receiving systemic treatment with palliative intent. Participants will be randomised to GET, CBT, or UC. In addition to UC, the GET group will participate in a 12-week supervised exercise programme. The CBT group will receive a 12-week CBT intervention in addition to UC. Primary and secondary outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, post-intervention (14 weeks), and at follow-up assessments (18 and 26 weeks post-randomisation). The primary outcome measure is fatigue severity (Checklist Individual Strength subscale fatigue severity). Secondary outcome measures are fatigue (EORTC-QLQ-C30 subscale fatigue), functional impairments (Sickness Impact Profile total score, EORTC-QLQ-C30 subscale emotional functioning, subscale physical functioning) and quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30 subscale QoL). Outcomes at 14 weeks (primary endpoint) of either treatment arm will be compared to those of UC participants. In addition, outcomes at 18 and 26 weeks (follow-up assessments) of either treatment arm will be compared to those of UC participants.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, the TIRED study is the first RCT investigating the efficacy of GET and CBT on reducing fatigue during treatment with palliative intent in incurable cancer patients. The results of this study will provide information about the possibility and efficacy of GET and CBT for severely fatigued incurable cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR3812 ; date of registration: 23/01/2013.

Aims and tasks in parental caregiving for children receiving palliative care at home: a qualitative study

In paediatric palliative care (PPC), parents are confronted with increasing caregiving demands. More children are cared for at home, and the need for PPC of children is lengthened due to technical and medical improvements. Therefore, a clear understanding of the content of parental caregiving in PPC becomes increasingly important. The objective is to gain insight into parental caregiving based on the lived experience of parents with a child with a life-limiting disease. An interpretative qualitative study using thematic analysis was performed. Single or repeated interviews were undertaken with 42 parents of 24 children with a malignant or non-malignant disease, receiving PPC. Based on their ambition to be a 'good parent', parents caring for a child with a life-limiting disease strived for three aims: controlled symptoms and controlled disease, a life worth living for their ill child and family balance. These aims resulted in four tasks that parents performed: providing basic and complex care, organising good quality care and treatment, making sound decisions while managing risks and organising a good family life.

CONCLUSION

Parents need early explanation from professionals about balancing between their aims and the related tasks to get a grip on their situation and to prevent becoming overburdened. What is Known: • In paediatric palliative care, parents are confronted with increasing caregiving demands. • Parenting is often approached from the perspective of stress. What is New: • Parents strive for three aims: controlled symptoms and controlled disease, a life worth living for their child and family balance. • Parents perform four tasks: providing basic and complex care, organising good quality care, making decisions while managing risks and organising a good family life. • Professionals need insight into the parents' aims and tasks from the parental perspective to strengthen parents' resilience.

Instability of Willingness to Accept Life-Sustaining Treatments in Patients With Advanced Chronic Organ Failure During 1 Year

BACKGROUND

For optimal end-of-life decision-making, it is important to understand the stability of patients' treatment preferences. The aim of this paper is to examine the stability of willingness to accept life-sustaining treatments during 1-year follow-up in Dutch patients with advanced chronic organ failure. In addition, we want to explore the association between willingness to accept high-burden treatment and preferences for CPR and mechanical ventilation (MV).

METHODS

In this multicenter longitudinal study, 265 clinically stable outpatients with advanced COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage III/IV [n = 105]), chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association class III/IV [n = 80]), or chronic renal failure (requiring dialysis [n = 80) were visited at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 months to assess the stability of life-sustaining treatment preferences using the Willingness to Accept Life-sustaining Treatment instrument.

RESULTS

Two hundred six patients completed 1-year follow-up (mean age, 67.2 years [SD, 13.1 years]; 64.1% men). Overall, proportions of patients who were willing to accept life-sustaining treatment during 1 year did not change over time. However, individual trajectories showed that about two-thirds of patients changed their preferences at least once during a year. Moreover, there was no association found between the stability of willingness to undergo high-burden therapy and the stability of preferences for CPR and MV.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings show the complexity of preferences for end-of-life care and indicate once again that advance care planning is a continuous process between patients and physicians, in which preferences for specific situations are discussed and that needs to be regularly reevaluated to deliver high-quality end-of-life care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR 1552).

Comparison of the Tolerability Profile of Controlled-Release Oral Morphine and Oxycodone for Cancer Pain Treatment. An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Oxycodone and morphine are recommended as first-choice opioids for moderate/severe cancer pain, but evidence about their relative tolerability has significant methodological limitations.

OBJECTIVES

This study was mainly aimed at comparing the risk of developing adverse events (AEs) with controlled-release oral morphine vs. oxycodone; secondary aims were comparing their analgesic efficacy and testing heterogeneity in tolerability across different age and renal function subgroups.

METHODS

An open-label multicenter RCT (EudraCT number: 2006-003151-21) was carried out in patients with moderate/severe cancer pain. At baseline, 7 and 14 days, patients scored on 0-10 rating scales (0-10 numerical rating scale) the intensity of pain and of a list of common opioid side effects. The primary end point was the percentage of patients reporting an AE (a worsening ≥ 2 points on any of the listed side effects); tolerability by subgroups and average follow-up pain intensity were compared through regression models.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-seven patients were enrolled (47% of originally planned). Intention to treat (ITT) analysis (N = 185, morphine 94, oxycodone 91) did not show any difference in the risk of developing AEs (risk difference -0.6%, 95% CI -11.0% to 9.9%) nor in analgesia (0-10 numerical rating scale pain intensity difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.27). No evidence of heterogeneity of tolerability across age and renal function patient subgroups emerged.

CONCLUSION

This trial failed to show any difference in tolerability and analgesic efficacy of morphine and oxycodone as first-line treatment for moderate/severe cancer pain but results interpretation is difficult due to lack of power, potential bias from open-label design, and concerns about assay sensitivity. These data, however, can significantly contribute to future meta-analyses comparing WHO Step-III opioids and are relevant in designing future randomized studies.