Key characteristics of palliative care studies reported in the specialized literature

Creating more comparable cohorts in observational palliative care studies: A proposed framework to improve applicability and replicability of research

BACKGROUND

Palliative care is characterised by heterogeneous patient and caregiver populations who are provided care in different health systems and a research base including a large proportion of observational, mostly retrospective studies. The inherent diversity of palliative care populations and the often inadequate study descriptions challenge the application of new knowledge into practice and reproducibility for confirmatory studies. Being able to define systematically study populations would significantly increase their generalisability and effective translation into practice.

PROPOSAL

Based on an informal consensus process by active palliative care researchers challenged by this problem and a review of the current evidence, we propose an approach to creating more comparable cohorts in observational (non-randomised) palliative care studies that relies on defining the study population in relation to a fixed, well-defined event from which analyses are built ('anchoring'). In addition to providing a detailed and complete description of the study population, anchoring is the critical step in creating more comparable cohorts in observational palliative care studies. Anchoring can be done with respect to a single or multiple data points, and can support both prospective and retrospective data collection and analysis.

DISCUSSION

Anchoring the cohort to reproducible data points will help create more comparable cohorts in palliative care whilst mitigating its inherent heterogeneity. This, in turn, will help optimise the generalisability, applicability and reproducibility of observational palliative care studies to strengthen the evidence base and improve practice.

Trends in Published Palliative Care Research: A 15-Year Review

BACKGROUND

There has been a call for palliative care (PC) published research to support the impact and need for more specialty PC services.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to characterize research in PC over a 15-year period in 3 PC journals published in the United States.

DESIGN

The authors reviewed every issue of the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Journal of Palliative Medicine, and American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine from 2004 through 2018. Studies included were original articles and brief reports. Study type (qualitative, quantitative), author (first and last), gender, and professional degree of the author (first and last) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 4881 articles were included in this study. The proportion of quantitative papers significantly increased across 3 time points from 63% to 67% to 78%. The proportion of women first authors increased across all 3 time points (54%, 2004-2008; 57%, 2009-2013; 60%, 2014-2018), and the proportion of women last authors increased across all time points (38%, 2004-2008; 44%, 2009-2013; 46%, 2014-2018). More than 40% of authors were physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Published PC studies are increasingly quantitative in design. Gender authorship is female dominant for the first authors and increasingly equal across genders for the last authors.

Do journals contribute to the international publication of research in their field? A bibliometric analysis of palliative care journal data

BACKGROUND

Research is important internationally, impacting on health service provision and patient benefit. Journals play an important dissemination role, but there may be geographical bias, potentially affecting access to evidence.

AIM

To understand if there is a relationship between the continent of journals and that of contributing authors.

DESIGN

Bibliometric analysis of journal citation report data (June 2018). Odds ratio of association of an author being from region, region of journal publication, publication model and the number of papers.

SETTING

Journals specialising in palliative care research, with an impact factor above the median impact factor for their most common indexing category.

RESULTS

Five journals: three published in Europe (Palliative Medicine, BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care, and BMC Palliative Care) and two in North America (Journal of Pain and Symptom Management and Journal of Palliative Medicine). Authors were from 30+ countries, but mostly North America (54.18%) or Europe (27.94%). Preliminary sensitivity tests show that the odds of an author being from a North American institution increase 16.4 times (p < 0.01; 95% confidence interval: 12.9, 20.8) if the region of journal publication is North America. The odds of an author being from a European institution is 14.0 times (p < 0.01; 95% confidence interval: 10.9, 17.9) higher if the region of journal publication is Europe.

CONCLUSION

Publishers, editors and authors are concentrated in North America or Europe. North American authors are more present in North American journals and European authors in European journals. This polarised approach, if replicated across readerships, may lead to research waste, duplication, and be sub-optimal for healthcare development.

Conference presentation in palliative medicine: predictors of subsequent publication

Objectives

Concerns have been raised about poor-quality palliative care research and low publication rate from conference abstracts. The study objectives: to estimate the publication rate for European Association for Palliative Care research conference abstracts (2008) and explore associated characteristics and to understand reasons for non-publication.

Methods

Full published papers were searched to March 2015 (Medline; Pubmed; Google Scholar) and data extracted: country of origin, study design/population/topic. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of publication.

Members of two different palliative care associations were surveyed to understand reasons for non-publication. χ2 statistic was used to explore associations with publication.

Results

Overall publication rate of the 445 proffered abstracts was 57%. In the final model, publication was more likely for oral presentations (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.55; P=0.003), those from Europe (3.24; 1.09 to 9.56; P=0.033) and much less likely for non-cancer topics (0.21; 0.07 to 0.64; P=0.006). Funding status, academic unit or study design were not associated with publication.

Survey

407/1546 (26.3%) physicians responded of whom 254 (62%) had submitted a conference abstract. Full publication was associated with: oral presentation (P<0.001), international conference abstracts (P=0.01) and academic clinicians versus clinicians (P<0.001). Reasons for non-publication included: low priority for workload (53%) and time constraints (43%).

Conclusions

The publication rate was similar to 2005 clinical conference. Probable quality markers were associated with publication: oral presentations selected by conference committee, international conference abstracts and abstracts from those with an academic appointment. Publication was given a low priority among clinical time pressures.

The Population Burden of Chronic Symptoms that Substantially Predate the Diagnosis of a Life-Limiting Illness

Many people in our communities live with symptoms for years or decades, something of relevance to hospice/palliative care clinicians and researchers. The proportion of people in the community at large who have a chronic symptom is likely to approximate the proportion of people referred to hospice/palliative care services with that same chronic symptom that pre-dates their life-limiting illness. Such patients may have different responsiveness to, and expectations from, symptomatic therapies, thus requiring more advanced approaches to symptom control. For researchers evaluating the impact of hospice/palliative care services, failing to account for people with long-term refractory symptoms pre-dating their life-limiting illness may systematically underestimate services' benefits. Observational symptom prevalence studies reported in hospice/palliative care to date have not accounted for people with long-term refractory symptoms, potentially systematically overestimating symptoms attributed to life-limiting illnesses. Cross-sectional community prevalence rates of key chronic refractory symptoms largely unrelated to their life-limiting illness reflect the likely prevalence on referral to hospice/palliative care: fatigue (up to 35%); pain (12%-31%); pain with neuropathic characteristics (9%); constipation (2%-29%); dyspnea (4%-9%); cognitive impairment (>10% of people >65 years old; >30% of people >85 years old); anxiety (4%); and depression (lifetime incidence 2%-15%; one year prevalence 3%). Prospective research is needed to establish (1) the prevalence and severity of chronic symptoms that pre-date the diagnosis of a life-limiting illness in people referred to hospice/palliative care services, comparing this to whole-of-population estimates; and (2) whether this group is disproportionately represented in people with refractory symptoms.

Ethical conduct of palliative care research: enhancing communication between investigators and institutional review boards

Palliative care has faced moral and ethical challenges when conducting research involving human subjects. There are currently no resources to guide institutional review boards (IRBs) in applying standard ethical principles and terms-in a specific way-to palliative care research. Using as a case study a recently completed multisite palliative care clinical trial, this article provides guidance and recommendations for both IRBs and palliative care investigators to facilitate communication and attain the goal of conducting ethical palliative care research and protecting study participants while advancing the science. Beyond identifying current challenges faced by palliative care researchers and IRBs reviewing palliative care research, this article suggests steps that the palliative care research community can take to establish a scientifically sound, stable, productive, and well-functioning relationship between palliative care investigators and the ethical bodies that oversee their work.

Palliative care research in Africa: consensus building for a prioritized agenda

CONTEXT

Palliative care research in Africa is in its relative infancy, with dedicated financial support extremely limited. Therefore, setting research priorities to optimize use of limited resources is imperative.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a prioritized research agenda for palliative care in Africa.

METHODS

We used a two-stage process involving palliative care professionals and researchers: 1) generation of an initial topic list at a consultative workshop of experts and 2) prioritization of that list using a consensus development process, the nominal group technique.

RESULTS

Phase 1: 41 topics were generated across five groups, with several topics nominated in more than one group. Phase 2: 16 topics and three broad thematic areas were identified. The two most prioritized topics within each of the three themes were the following: Theme 1: patient, family, and volunteers-1) care outcomes and the impact of palliative care as perceived by patients and caregivers and 2) palliative care needs of children; Theme 2: health providers-1) impact of palliative care training on care and practice and 2) integration of palliative care and antiretroviral therapy services; and Theme 3: health systems-1) palliative care needs assessments at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels and 2) integration of palliative care into health systems and educational curricula.

CONCLUSION

Consensus-based palliative care topics determined by the study can assist researchers in optimizing limited research capacities by focusing on these prioritized areas. Subsequent to the identification and publication of the research agenda, concrete steps will be undertaken by the African Palliative Care Research Network and other partners to help implement it.

Breathlessness--current and emerging mechanisms, measurement and management: a discussion from an European Association of Palliative Care workshop

BACKGROUND

A pre-conference workshop at the 2012 European Association of Palliative Care meeting discussed the current scientific and clinical aspects of breathlessness.

AIM

To describe a current overview of clinically relevant science in breathlessness.

DESIGN

A collation of workshop presentations and discussions.

DATA SOURCES

Narrative review.

RESULTS

The mismatch between the drive to breathe and the ability to breathe underlies the major theories of breathlessness unifying central processing of peripheral inputs including more recent recognition of the importance of peripheral muscles in mediating efferent inputs, supporting reduction of breathlessness with muscle conditioning. Key questions are whether there is a 'final common pathway' for breathlessness? Are the central nervous system targets for reducing breathlessness identical irrespective of underlying aetiology? Central nervous system functional imaging confirms an ability to differentiate severity (intensity) from affective components (unpleasantness). Breathlessness generates suffering across the community for patients and their caregivers often for long periods. The exertional nature of breathlessness means that reduction rather than elimination of the symptom is the therapeutic goal. No single intervention is likely to relieve chronic refractory breathlessness, but interventions made up of several components may provide incremental relief. Having optimally treated any underlying reversible components, the resultant chronic refractory breathlessness can be treated with pharmacological, psychological and physical therapies to reduce the sensation and its impacts.

CONCLUSION

Ensuring optimal delivery of interventions for breathlessness, whose design is underpinned by improving the understanding in the aetiology and maintenance of breathlessness, is the subject of ongoing controlled clinical trials.