Quality of death: The unspoken experiences of patients with advanced cancers in India - An exploratory qualitative study

What outcomes do studies use to measure the impact of prognostication on people with advanced cancer? Findings from a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer patients vary in the outcomes they measure, and there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are most important.

AIM

To identify outcomes previously reported in prognostic research with people with advanced cancer, as a first step towards constructing a core outcome set for prognostic impact studies.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted and analysed in two subsets: one qualitative and one quantitative. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022320117; 29/03/2022).

DATA SOURCES

Six databases were searched from inception to September 2022. We extracted data describing (1) outcomes used to measure the impact of prognostication and (2) patients' and informal caregivers' experiences and perceptions of prognostication in advanced cancer. We classified findings using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative taxonomy, along with a narrative description. We appraised retrieved studies for quality, but quality was not a basis for exclusion.

RESULTS

We identified 42 eligible studies: 32 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 4 mixed methods. We extracted 70 outcomes of prognostication in advanced cancer and organised them into 12 domains: (1) survival; (2) psychiatric outcomes; (3) general outcomes; (4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing, (5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; (6) cognitive functioning; (7) social functioning; (8) global quality of life; (9) delivery of care; (10) perceived health status; (11) personal circumstances; and (12) hospital/hospice use.

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting and measurement varied markedly across the studies. A standardised approach to outcome reporting in studies of prognosis is necessary to enhance data synthesis, improve clinical practice and better align with stakeholders' priorities.

Notion of a good death for patients with cancer: a qualitative systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Promoting the quality of death and achieving a good death is one of the most important goals of palliative care in cancer care. Few studies synthesised views of patients with cancer on the notion of a good death and its associated factors. By eliciting the core elements of a good death, the review aims to identify potential unmet needs of patients with cancer and reveal their common values and care preferences at the end of life. The review also has the potential to inform the development of guidelines for clinical care and shared decision-making in palliative care practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A qualitative systematic review will be conducted and reported according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic review and synthesis of qualitative data and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Comprehensive search will be performed in six English and two Chinese databases from inception to 30 April 2022 to retrieve relevant qualitative articles focusing on the notion of a good death from the perspective of patients with cancer. Data will be extracted using the JBI standardised data extraction tool for qualitative research. The quality of the included studies will be critically appraised using the JBI Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument. Data extraction and quality appraisal will be conducted by two reviewers independently. A meta-aggregative approach and narrative summary will be used to synthesise data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not needed. We will disseminate the findings through international conferences related to cancer care or palliative care. The final review will be submitted and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021266629.