Caregiver-Oncologist Prognostic Concordance, Caregiver Mastery, and Caregiver Psychological Health and Quality of Life

Communication between Caregivers of Adults with Cancer and Healthcare Professionals: a Review of Communication Experiences, Associated Factors, Outcomes, and Interventions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Family/unpaid caregivers play an important role in cancer care. This review aims to summarize caregiver communication experiences with healthcare professionals (HCPs).

RECENT FINDINGS

The Caregiver-Centered Communication model defines five core functions that HCPs should achieve when interacting with caregivers, including fostering relationships, exchanging information, recognizing and responding to caregiver emotions, aiding in decision making, and assisting in patient care management. The literature shows that caregivers have both positive and negative communication experiences with HCPs with respect to these five core functions. Factors at the caregiver (e.g., demographic characteristics, information sources, caregiving duration, health status), patient (e.g., demographic and clinical characteristics), and HCP levels (e.g., time constraints in clinical settings, communication skills) are associated with caregiver-HCP communication quality. Studies further show that these communication experiences may affect caregiver outcomes, including quality of life, mental health, resilience, and satisfaction with cancer care. Moreover, poor quality caregiver-HCP communication is associated with patient readmission to the hospital and unmet care needs. Interventions for caregivers or patient-caregiver dyads have been shown to enhance caregiver confidence and increase their engagement in communication with HCPs. Interventions for HCPs have shown efficacy in improving their communication skills, particularly in involving caregivers in decision-making discussions. Given time constraints during medical visits, we suggest conducting a caregiver assessment by navigators prior to visits to understand their communication needs. Additionally, reimbursing HCPs for time spent communicating with caregivers during visits could be beneficial. More research is needed to better understand how to enhance caregiver-HCP communication quality.

The impact of caregiver burden on quality of life in family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer: a moderated mediation analysis of the role of psychological distress and family resilience

BACKGROUND

The caregiver burden frequently experienced by family members tending to advanced cancer patients significantly impacts their psychological well-being and quality of life (QoL). Although family resilience might function as a mitigating factor in this relationship, its specific role remains to be elucidated. This study aims to probe the mediating effect of psychological distress on the relationship between caregiver burden and QoL, as well as the moderating effect of family resilience.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between June 2020 and March 2021 in five tertiary hospitals in China. Data were collected on caregiver burden, family resilience, psychological distress (including anxiety and depression), and QoL. Moderated mediation analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Data analysis included 290 caregivers. It confirmed the mediating role of psychological distress in the caregiver burden-QoL relationship (P < 0.001). Both overall family resilience and the specific dimension of family communication and problem-solving (FCPS) demonstrated significant moderating effects on the "psychological distress/anxiety-QoL" paths (P < 0.05). The utilization of social and economic resources (USER) significantly moderated the association between depression and QoL (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The study corroborates psychological distress's mediation between caregiver burden and QoL and family resilience's moderation between psychological distress and QoL. It underscores the need for minimizing psychological distress and bolstering family resilience among caregivers of advanced cancer patients. Accordingly, interventions should be tailored, inclusive of psychological assistance and promotion of family resilience, particularly focusing on FCPS and USER, to augment the caregivers' well-being and QoL.

Coping with glioblastoma: prognostic communication and prognostic understanding among patients with recurrent glioblastoma, caregivers, and oncologists

PURPOSE

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a devastating neuro-oncologic disease with invariably poor prognosis. Despite this, research shows patients have unrealistic perceptions of their prognosis, which may relate in part to communication patterns between patients, caregivers and oncologists. The purpose of this study was to examine communication processes and goals among patients, caregivers, and oncologists to elucidate drivers of prognostic understanding (PU) in the context of recurrent GBM.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multi-center study enrolling adult patients with GBM, caregivers, and oncologists, who independently reported the content of a specific discussion involving the disclosure of GBM recurrence. Communication processes and goals were characterized for each participant, and concordance between all dyads and patient-caregiver-oncologist triads were calculated.

RESULTS

Seventeen patient, caregiver, and oncologist triads were analyzed. At the individual level, three (17.6%) patients and 8 (47.1%) caregivers reported having discussed prognosis during the clinical encounter, as compared to ten oncologists (58.8%). Seven patients (41.2%) and 5 caregivers (29.4%), versus thirteen oncologists (76.5%) reported ever discussing prognosis or life expectancy at previous appointments. Generally, patient-caregiver concordance (i.e., both answered the same) regarding communication goals and processes was low. Triads showed limited concordant responses in discussing curability (n = 5), prognosis (n = 4), end-of-life treatment goals (n = 4), and ever discussing prognosis (n = 3).

CONCLUSION

Patients, caregivers and oncologists had discordant views regarding communication processes and prognostic goals, even when recalling a single discussion. This study highlights the importance of clear and frequent communication about prognosis, and the need for further research on communication and PU in the neuro-oncology setting.

Evaluating the association of frailty with communication about aging-related concerns between older patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists

BACKGROUND

A geriatric assessment (GA) intervention improves communication about aging-related concerns, but its effect on communication in patients with various levels of frailty is unknown.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a nationwide trial of patients aged ≥70 years with incurable cancer and impairment on 1 or more GA domains (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02107443; principal investigator Supriya G. Mohile). Practice sites were randomized to either the GA-intervention or usual care. Frailty was assessed with a deficit accumulation index (range, 0-1), and patients were stratified as robust (0 to <0.2), prefrail (0.2 to <0.35), or frail (≥0.35). The clinic visit after the GA-intervention was audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded to evaluate the number and quality of conversations about aging-related concerns. Linear mixed models examined differences in the number and quality of conversations within and between arms. All P values were 2-sided.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 541) were classified as robust (27%), prefrail (42%), or frail (31%). In the usual care arm, frail patients (vs robust ones) engaged in more aging-related conversations (adjusted mean difference, 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.87), conversations of higher quality (difference, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.24-2.0), and more discussions about evidence-based recommendations (difference, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.04-1.38; all P values ≤ .01). Similarly, in the GA intervention arm, frail patients (vs robust ones) engaged in more aging-related conversations (difference, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.51-3.47), conversations of higher quality (difference, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.56-2.06), and more discussions about evidence-based recommendations (difference, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.32-1.42; all P values ≤ .01). Furthermore, the GA-intervention significantly improved the number and quality of conversations in all patients: robust, prefrail, and frail (all P values ≤ .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with higher degrees of frailty and those exposed to the GA-intervention had more and higher quality conversations about aging-related concerns with oncologists.

LAY SUMMARY

A geriatric assessment (GA) intervention improves communication about aging-related concerns, but its effect on communication in patients with various levels of frailty is unknown. This study conducted a secondary analysis of a nationwide trial of patients aged ≥70 years with incurable cancer and 1 or more GA domain impairments. Patients were stratified as robust, prefrail, or frail. The number and quality of conversations about aging-related concerns that occurred during the clinic visit after the GA-intervention were determined. Patients with higher degrees of frailty and those in the GA intervention arm had more and higher quality conversations about aging-related concerns with oncologists.

Association of Prognostic Understanding With Health Care Use Among Older Adults With Advanced Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

A poor prognostic understanding regarding curability is associated with lower odds of hospice use among patients with cancer. However, the association between poor prognostic understanding or prognostic discordance and health care use among older adults with advanced incurable cancers is not well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of poor prognostic understanding and patient-oncologist prognostic discordance with hospitalization and hospice use among older adults with advanced cancers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a post hoc secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial that recruited patients from October 29, 2014, to April 28, 2017. Data were collected from community oncology practices affiliated with the University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. The parent trial enrolled 541 patients who were aged 70 years or older and were receiving or considering any line of cancer treatment for incurable solid tumors or lymphomas; the patients' oncologists and caregivers (if available) were also enrolled. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Data were analyzed from January 3 to 16, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

At enrollment, patients and oncologists were asked about their beliefs regarding cancer curability (100%, >50%, 50%, <50%, and 0%; answers other than 0% reflected poor prognostic understanding) and life expectancy (≤6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, 2-5 years, and >5 years; answers of >5 years reflected poor prognostic understanding). Any difference between oncologist and patient in response options was considered discordant. Outcomes were any hospitalization and hospice use at 6 months captured by the clinical research associates.

RESULTS

Among the 541 patients, the mean (SD) age was 76.6 (5.2) years, 264 of 540 (49%) were female, and 486 of 540 (90%) were White. Poor prognostic understanding regarding curability was reported for 59% (206 of 348) of patients, and poor prognostic understanding regarding life expectancy estimates was reported for 41% (205 of 496) of patients. Approximately 60% (202 of 336) of patient-oncologist dyads were discordant regarding curability, and 72% (356 of 492) of patient-oncologist dyads were discordant regarding life expectancy estimates. Poor prognostic understanding regarding life expectancy estimates was associated with lower odds of hospice use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59). Discordance regarding life expectancy estimates was associated with greater odds of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.01-2.66).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study highlights different constructs of prognostic understanding and the need to better understand the association between prognostic understanding and health care use among older adult patients with advanced cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02107443.

Association Between Caregiver-Oncologist Discordance in Patient's Life Expectancy Estimates and Caregiver Perceived Autonomy Support by the Oncologist

BACKGROUND

Caregiver perceived autonomy support by the oncologist is important for caregiver well-being and may be affected by the patient's survival. We determined the association of caregiver-oncologist discordance in patient's life expectancy estimates with perceived autonomy support over time and whether the association differed by patient survival status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used data from a geriatric assessment cluster-randomized trial (URCC 13070) that recruited patients aged at least 70 years with incurable cancer considering or receiving treatment, their caregivers, and their oncologists. At baseline, caregivers and oncologists were asked to estimate patient's life expectancy (0-6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, 2-5 years, and >5 years; any difference in response was considered discordant). At 4-6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months, caregivers completed the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ), which measured perceived autonomy support by the oncologist. Generalized estimating equation modeling was conducted to assess the association of baseline caregiver-oncologist discordance with longitudinal HCCQ scores, stratified by patient 6-month survival status.

RESULTS

Discordant life expectancy estimates were present in 72.0% of dyads. In multivariate analyses, caregiver-oncologist discordance in patient's life expectancy estimates was associated with higher caregiver HCCQ scores. In stratified analysis, caregiver-oncologist discordance was associated with lower caregiver HCCQ scores (β = -3.46; 95% CI, -4.64 to -2.29) among patients who died within 6 months but with higher caregiver HCCQ scores (β = 1.33; 95% CI, 0.63-2.04) among patients who survived beyond 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Interventions aimed at mitigating discordance need to consider its association with caregiver perceived autonomy support and patient's survival in order to better inform caregiver expectations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Among patients who died within the first 6 months, caregivers who estimated a different length of life for the patient compared with oncologists were more likely to report lower support from the oncologist, whereas the opposite relationship was seen within patients who survived beyond the first 6 months. When designing interventions to improve caregiver understanding of the patient's prognosis, its relationship with caregiver-perceived support and patient's survival needs to be considered.