Effect of patient education on palliative care knowledge and acceptability of outpatient palliative care services among gynecologic oncology patients: A randomized controlled trial

Piloting a Patient Tool to Aid Palliative Care Referrals during Advanced Lung Cancer Treatment

CONTEXT

Patient misperceptions are a strong barrier to early palliative care discussions and referrals during advanced lung cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

We developed and tested the acceptability of a web-based patient-facing palliative care education and screening tool intended for use in a planned multilevel intervention (i.e., patient, clinician, system-level targets).

METHODS

We elicited feedback from advanced lung cancer patients (n = 6), oncology and palliative care clinicians (n = 4), and a clinic administrator (n = 1) on the perceived relevance of the intervention. We then tested the prototype of a patient-facing tool for patient acceptability and preliminary effects on patient palliative care knowledge and motivation.

RESULTS

Partners agreed that the intervention-clinician palliative care education and an electronic health record-integrated patient tool-is relevant and their feedback informed development of the patient prototype. Advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 20; age 60 ± 9.8; 40% male; 70% with a technical degree or less) reviewed and rated the prototype on a five-point scale for acceptability (4.48 ± 0.55), appropriateness (4.37 ± 0.62), and feasibility (4.43 ± 0.59). After using the prototype, 75% were interested in using palliative care and 80% were more motivated to talk to their oncologist about it. Of patients who had or were at risk of having misperceptions about palliative care (e.g., conflating it with hospice), 100% no longer held the misperceptions after using the prototype.

CONCLUSION

The palliative care education and screening tool is acceptable to patients and may address misperceptions and motivate palliative care discussions during treatment.

Integrating palliative care education in pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomized controlled study protocol

BACKGROUND

Palliative care addresses multiple unmet needs of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung diseases (ILD) and their family and/or friend caregivers, but it remains highly underused. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) may provide a key opportunity to introduce palliative care. We aim to explore the effects of palliative care education as part of PR on knowledge about this field in people with COPD or ILD and their family and/or friend caregivers.

METHODS

A randomized controlled study will compare PR with palliative care education (experimental) with traditional PR (control) in people with COPD or ILD and their family and/or friend caregivers. Family and/or friend caregivers will be invited to take part in education and psychosocial support sessions. In addition to the usual educational content, the experimental group will have a session on palliative care, a "Peer-to-peer session", two "Get-apart sessions" and online sessions. The "Peer-to-peer session" and the "Get-apart sessions" will be discussions about topics suggested by participants. The "Get-apart sessions" will be dedicated to people with COPD or ILD apart from their family and/or friend caregivers and vice versa. The online sessions will be zoom meetings to discuss any health-related issues raised by participants, at a flexible time. A mixed-methods approach will be used to evaluate the outcomes. The primary outcome will be knowledge about palliative care. Secondary outcomes will include attitude towards palliative care referral, symptoms, disease impact, health-related quality of life, needs, knowledge about the disease, burden of providing care, adherence, adverse events and referral to a specialist palliative care team. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected at baseline and end of PR. At 6-months post-PR, only patient-reported outcomes will be collected. For the primary outcome, time*group interaction will be analyzed with mixed analysis of variance.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to demonstrate the impact of integrating palliative care into the PR education program.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov U.S. National Library of Medicine, on 1st September, 2023 (NCT06046547).

Education About Specialty Palliative Care Among Nonhealthcare Workers: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Despite the expansion of palliative care (PC) services, the public has little knowledge and holds misperceptions about PC, creating barriers to accessing timely specialty PC.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence regarding the efficacy of educational interventions to improve knowledge and attitudes about PC among nonhealthcare workers.

METHODS

We searched five databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CIANHL, Web of Science, and Scopus) for studies investigating educational interventions about specialty PC in adults who identified as patients, caregivers, or members of the public. We included studies that were available in English and had a comparator group. We excluded studies that only sampled health professionals or children. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess quality and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of 12,420 records identified, we screened 5948 abstracts and assessed 526 full texts for eligibility. Twenty-one articles were extracted for analysis, representing 20 unique educational interventions. Common methodologies included quasi-experimental (9, 45%), randomized controlled trial (4, 20%), and nonrandomized trial (2, 10%). Common components of the educational interventions included video presentations (9, 45%), written materials (8, 40%), and lectures (4, 20%). Content included definition (14, 70%) and philosophy (14, 70%) of PC, distinctions between PC and hospice (11, 55%), and eligibility for PC (11, 55%). Fourteen (70%) interventions showed statistically significant positive differences in either knowledge or attitudes about PC.

CONCLUSIONS

While educational interventions can positively impact knowledge and attitudes about PC among nonhealthcare workers, more research is needed to inform the design, delivery, and evaluation of interventions to increase knowledge and attitudes about PC.

Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people

BACKGROUND

Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life,  we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review's purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials.  Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication.  Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations.  Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions  (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life.  Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.

Awareness and Perceptions of Palliative Care Among the Elderly: A Qualitative Study

Objectives: With the rapidly aging population worldwide, the demand for palliative care is increasing. Palliative care publicity and education must be further developed globally, especially for the elderly. It is essential to perform targeted promotion by understanding the awareness and needs of palliative care of the elderly. This study aimed to investigate elderly people's awareness of palliative care and their own views on and needs for palliative care, which could provide a basis for the popularization of palliative care among them. Methods: A total of 20 elderly people were recruited to participate in the semi-structured, and in-depth interviews. Participants were from communities and nursing homes in Chongqing, China. The interview transcripts were coded using the method of thematic analysis. Results: Finally, 4 themes and 10 subthemes were identified, that is: unawareness of the concept of palliative care (never heard of palliative care, confusion between euthanasia and palliative care), motivations for accepting palliative care (personal perspective: less suffering; family perspective: relieving the burden), factors influencing palliative care decision (cost of palliative care, knowledge of palliative care, opinion of decision-making agents), and necessity and preferences for publicizing palliative care (eagerness to know more about palliative care, focusing on policy and charges, preference for Electronic Media Advertising). Conclusions: Palliative care publicity among the elderly is important and necessary. Findings in this study could provide some insights into how to popularize palliative care among the elderly. Considering the preference of the elderly for access to palliative care information, simultaneous publicity through TV and online channels is suggested. Since the elderly would like to choose their doctors and adult children as decision-making agents, more communication between community, health professionals and family is advocated.

Increasing Readiness for Early Integrated Palliative Oncology Care: Development and Initial Evaluation of the EMPOWER 2 Intervention

CONTEXT

Early integrated palliative care improves quality of life, but palliative care programs are underutilized. Psychoeducational interventions explaining palliative care may increase patients' readiness for palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

To 1) collaborate with stakeholders to develop the EMPOWER 2 intervention explaining palliative care, 2) examine acceptability, 3) evaluate feasibility and preliminary efficacy.

METHODS

The research was conducted at a North American cancer center and involved 21 stakeholders and 10 patient-participants. Investigators and stakeholders iteratively developed the intervention. Stakeholders rated acceptability of the final intervention. Investigators implemented a pre-post trial to examine the feasibility of recruiting 10 patients with metastatic cancer within one month and with a ≥50% consent rate. Preliminary efficacy outcomes were changes in palliative care knowledge and attitudes.

RESULTS

Using feedback from four stakeholder meetings, we developed a multimedia intervention tailored to three levels of health-literacy. The intervention provides knowledge and reassurance about the purpose and nature of palliative care, addressing cognitive and emotional barriers to utilization. Stakeholders rated the intervention and design process highly acceptable (3.78/4.00). The pilot met a priori feasibility criteria (10 patients enrolled in 14 days; 83.3% consent rate). The intervention increased palliative care knowledge by 83.1% and improved attitudes by 18.9 points on a 0 to 51 scale (Ps < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

This formative research outlines the development of a psychoeducational intervention about palliative care. The intervention is acceptable, feasible, and demonstrated promising pilot test results. This study will guide clinical teams in improving patients' readiness for palliative care and inform the forthcoming EMPOWER 3 randomized clinical trial.

Sources of Palliative Care Knowledge Among Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Gynecologic Cancer

CONTEXT

A minority of patients with advanced or metastatic gynecologic cancer utilize palliative care and lack of knowledge may be a barrier to receiving palliative care services.

OBJECTIVES

To identify sources used by patients with advanced or metastatic gynecologic cancer to learn about palliative care and evaluate for differences in knowledge about palliative care and palliative care utilization by knowledge source.

METHODS

Patients with gynecologic cancer receiving treatment for advanced or metastatic gynecologic cancer at a single academic medical center were surveyed about their awareness of and knowledge about palliative care. Medical chart review was conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 111 women surveyed, 70 had heard of palliative care (63%). Sixty-eight specified from where they learned of palliative care: cancer care (n = 28; 41.2%), word of mouth (n = 26; 38.2%), work (n = 6; 8.8%), self-education (n = 4; 5.9%), personal experience (n = 2; 2.9%), or do not know (n = 2; 2.9%). Knowledge about palliative care (P = 0.35) and palliative care utilization (P = 0.81) did not differ by awareness of palliative care.

CONCLUSION

Most women receiving treatment for advanced gynecologic cancer have heard of palliative care from sources other than their cancer care providers. Knowledge about palliative care and source of knowledge about palliative care were not associated with palliative care utilization. Awareness of palliative care and palliative care utilization may be improved by increasing the low rate of health provider-based education and engaging cancer patients' social networks.