Pragmatic Considerations in Incorporating Stakeholder Engagement Into a Palliative Care Transitions Study

Implementing Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Stakeholder Engagement Principles in Models of Palliative Care Delivery and Advance Care Planning Research

BACKGROUND

Given the many challenges of conducting research that addresses the palliative and end-of-life care needs of patients with serious illnesses, stakeholder engagement starting from the moment of study conceptualization and design is critical to ensure successful participant recruitment, data collection, intervention delivery, data analysis, and dissemination.

METHODS

Guided by a conceptual model published by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) entitled, "Measuring What Matters for Advancing the Science and Practice of Engagement"14 and with the support of a PCORI Engagement Officer, representatives from 9 PCORI-funded study teams formed a working group to survey team members and review, outline, and describe key lessons learned and best practices for promoting stakeholder engagement in palliative care research.

RESULTS

Almost all study teams engaged with patients/caregivers, clinicians, researchers, and health care system experts as stakeholder partners. About half the teams also included payers and training institutions as part of their stakeholder advisors as well as a range of content experts. Study teams relied on a variety of support structures and resources, and they employed 10 distinct methods for maintaining engagement. All engagement methods were generally considered to be effective by teams who used the method, though there was some variability in team-rated engagement quality of each method. Nine barriers to stakeholder engagement were identified across the 9 studies as well as 9 strategies (or facilitators) to overcome these barriers. We share examples of how stakeholder engagement impacted studies in all phases, including the preparatory phase, study initiation phase, execution phase, and data analysis/dissemination phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Teams utilized a variety of resources and support structures as well as capitalized on multiple engagement methods for fostering stakeholder engagement, resulting in a high level of collaboration and integration.

Challenges of palliative care identified by stakeholders in resource-limited settings: A multi-regional study in Kazakhstan

INTRODUCTION

In Kazakhstan, a country of 19 million residents, more than 100,000 patients need palliative care. Since at least one family member is usually involved in the care of a terminal patient, more than 200,000 people would benefit from high-quality palliative care services in the country. However, with only 45 physicians and 101 nurses attending to 1925 palliative beds, Kazakhstan seeks to develop palliative services that meet the national needs in resource-limited settings and international standards. The objectives of this study are to explore the challenges faced by stakeholders involved in palliative care in Kazakhstan and to subsequently provide recommendations that can guide policymakers towards further developing palliative care services in the country.

METHODS

This cross-sectional descriptive study collected narrative data with in-depth interviews from n= 29 palliative stakeholders (family caregivers n= 12, healthcare professionals =12, administrators n= 5) across five regions of Kazakhstan. Verbatim transcripts of interviews were analyzed using content analysis to identify needs and challenges of stakeholders involved in palliative care.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified seven main challenges of palliative care stakeholders: high out-of-pocket expenditures; lack of mobile palliative care services for home-based care; severe shortages of opioids to prevent pain suffering; poor formal palliative care education; absence of practical skills training for family caregivers; lack of awareness about palliative care in the society, and lack of state support.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of national palliative care strategies and policies require a large-scale coordinated involvement of all stakeholders. Our recommendations are based on the idea that coordinated, targeted, and tailored stakeholder engagement is preferred to a one-size-fits-all strategy.

What's in This For You? What's in This For Me?: A Win-Win Perspective of Involving Study Advisory Committee Members in Palliative Care Research

Study advisory committees (SACs) provide critical value to clinical trials by providing unique perspectives that pull from personal and professional experiences related to the trial's healthcare topic. The Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) study had the privilege of convening a 16-person SAC from the project's inception to completion. The study team wanted to understand the impact this project had on the SAC members. In this narrative, we use reflective dialogue to share SAC members' lived experiences and the impact the EMPallA study has had on members both personally and professionally. We detail the (1) benefits SAC members, specifically patients, and caregivers, have had through working on this project. (2) The importance of recruiting diverse SAC members with different lived experiences and leveraging their feedback in clinical research. (3) Value of community capacity building to ensure the common vision of the clinical trial is promoted.

The German version of the Mini Suffering State Examination (MSSE) for people with advanced dementia living in nursing homes

Background

The Mini Suffering State Examination (MSSE) has been explicitly recommended to assess suffering in dementia patients. This study aimed to develop a German version of the MSSE and assess its psychometric properties involving people with advanced dementia (PAD) in a nursing home setting.

Methods

The MSSE was translated into German, and 95 primary nurses administered it cross-sectionally to 124 PAD in Zurich, Switzerland. The psychometric properties of the German MSSE version were calculated for this population.

Results

The mean age of the PAD was 83.3 years (SD = 9.1, range = 55–102 years), and 98 of them (79.0%) were women. The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 coefficient for the entire scale (0.58), the eight items relating to objective health conditions (0.39), and the professional and family estimation of the patient’s suffering (0.64) indicated low internal consistency. A confirmatory factor analysis indicated an unsatisfactory fit to a one-factor structure, with a comparative fit index and root mean square error of approximation of 0.71 and 0.08, respectively, and a Tucker–Lewis index of 0.64. The MSSE total score was significantly but moderately correlated with the total scores of the Symptom Management–End-of-Life with Dementia (SM-EOLD) scale (Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = -0.44; p < 0.05), the physical suffering scores (r = 0.41; p < 0.05), and the psychological suffering scores (r = 0.55; p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The German version of the MSSE questionnaire did not perform well in the nursing home setting involving PAD. The instrument had low internal consistency, doubtful validity, and could not discriminate between suffering and other distressing symptoms. We do not recommend its use in this population.

Patient-Centered Approaches to Transitional Care Research and Implementation: Overview and Insights From Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Transitional Care Portfolio

BACKGROUND

This Special Issue, Future Directions in Transitional Care Research, focuses on the approaches used and lessons learned by researchers conducting care transitions studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). PCORI's approach to transitional care research augments prior research by encouraging researchers to focus on head-to-head comparisons of interventions, the use of patient-centered outcomes, and the engagement of stakeholders throughout the research process.

OBJECTIVES

This paper introduces the themes and topics addressed by the articles that follow, which are focused on opportunities and challenges involved in conducting patient-centered clinical comparative effectiveness research in transitional care. It provides an overview of the state of the care transitions field, a description of PCORI's programmatic objectives, highlights of the patient and stakeholder engagement activities that have taken place during the course of these studies, and a brief overview of PCORI's Transitional Care Evidence to Action Network, a learning community designed to foster collaboration between investigators and their research teams and enhance the collective impact of this body of work.

CONCLUSIONS

The papers in this Special Issue articulate challenges, lessons learned, and new directions for measurement, stakeholder engagement, implementation, and methodological and design approaches that reflect the complexity of transitional care comparative effectiveness research and seek to move the field toward a more holistic understanding of transitional care that integrates social needs and lifespan development into our approaches to improving care transitions.