Patient and physician perspectives on engaging in palliative and healthcare trials: a qualitative descriptive study

Challenges in reaching patients with severe mental illness for trials in general practice-a convergent mixed methods study based on the SOFIA pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) die prematurely due to undetected and inadequate treatment of somatic illnesses. The SOFIA pilot study was initiated to mend this gap in health inequity. However, reaching patients with SMI for intervention research has previously proven difficult. This study aimed to investigate the recruitment of patients with SMI for the SOFIA pilot study in 2021.

METHODS

We used a mixed-method convergent design. The qualitative material comprised 20 interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and staff, during patient recruitment. The quantitative data consisted of process data on baseline characteristics, GPs reported reasons for excluding a patient, reported reasons for patients declining participation, and registered data from a Danish population of patients with SMI. We used thematic analysis in the qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics for the quantitative analysis. Pillar integration was used for integrating the material.

RESULTS

Our findings show that selection bias occurred in the pilot study. We describe four main themes based on the integrated analysis that highlights selection issues: (1) poor data quality and inconsistency in defining severity definitions troubled identification and verification, (2) protecting the patient and maintaining practice efficiency, (3) being familiar with the patient was important for a successful recruitment, and (4) in hindsight, the GPs questioned whether the target population was reached.

CONCLUSIONS

In the light of theories of professions and street-level bureaucracy, we find that the main drivers of the patient selection bias occurring in the SOFIA pilot study were that 1) GPs and staff mended eligibility criteria to protect certain patients and/or to minimize workload and maintain efficiency in the practice 2) the data from the GP record systems and the digital assessment tool to assist recruitment was not optimal. Interventions targeting this patient group should carefully consider the recruitment strategy with a particular focus on professionals' discretionary practices and information technology pitfalls.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The pilot trial protocol was registered on the 5th of November 2020. The registration number is NCT04618250 .

Facilitators and Barriers to Older Adult Participation in Cancer Trials: A Qualitative Study Exploring Patient-Caregiver Dyad Congruence

PURPOSE

Family caregivers play an integral role in caring for older adults with cancer. Few studies have examined older adults with cancer and their family caregivers as a unit in a relationship or a dyad. Dyad congruence, or consistency in perspective, is relevant to numerous aspects of living with cancer, including the decision to enroll in a cancer clinical trial.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews of 32 older women (age ≥ 70 years) with breast cancer and their family caregivers (16 dyads) were conducted at both academic and community settings from December 2019 to March 2021 to explore perceived facilitators and barriers to cancer trials. Dyad congruence was defined as aligned (matching) perspectives, and incongruence was defined as misaligned (nonmatching) perspectives.

RESULTS

Five (31%) of 16 patients were age ≥80 years, 11 (69%) had nonmetastatic breast cancer, and 14 (88%) were treated in an academic setting. Six (38%) of 16 caregivers were in the 50-59 age group, 10 (63%) were female, and seven (44%) were daughters. Dyad congruence centered on the clinical benefit of trials and physician recommendation. However, compared with caregivers, patients were more motivated to contribute to science. Patients and caregivers also differed on the perceived extent to which the caregiver influenced enrollment.

CONCLUSION

Older patients with cancer and their caregivers generally agree about the facilitators and barriers to cancer trial enrollment, but some perceptions are misaligned. Further research is needed to understand whether misaligned perspectives between patients and caregivers influence clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer.

Implementing advance care planning in Swedish healthcare settings - a qualitative study of professionals' experiences

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) is a process involving conversations about values and preferences regarding future care at the end-of-life. ACP has led to positive outcomes, both in relation to quality of life and with increased use of palliative care, less life-sustaining treatment and fewer hospital admissions. Sweden has yet to embrace the practice systematically, but scattered initiatives exist.

AIM

To study implementation of a routine for ACP in NH settings in Sweden by exploring healthcare professionals' experiences of engaging in ACP following this implementation.

METHODS

The study followed a qualitative inductive design with convenience and snowball sampling. Semi-structured group and individual interviews with registered healthcare professionals were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

FINDINGS

Organisational support for sustainable ACP implementation was found to be essential. This included sufficient training, facilitation, collaboration and uniform work routines across providers and professionals. Engaging in ACP conversations following the implemented routine was found to be a process of preparing, being, talking, deciding and sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation of ACP in NHs requires a carefully planned implementation strategy. ACP in NHs tend to be medically focused at the expense of residents' psychosocial care-planning needs. Widespread uptake of ACP in Sweden could be useful in the national effort to adopt more person-centred care in Swedish healthcare.KEY POINTS While advance care planning has been implemented in many other countries, Sweden lacks a national strategy on advance care planning and Swedish healthcare settings have yet to systematically implement this practice.  • This study is the first to report on professionals' experiences of engaging in sustainable advance care planning, following top-down implementation of the practice in one Swedish region.  • Successful implementation of advance care planning in nursing homes requires a system-level approach, and shortcomings of the implementation process are highlighted.

A Tale of Two Trials: A Comparative Case Study of Successful versus Terminated Home-Based Palliative Care Trials

Background: In 2007 we published a trial of home-based palliative care (HBPC) conducted in a managed care organization (MCO) that found significant improvements in patient satisfaction with health care, rates of home deaths, and reductions in health care use and costs. A decade later, we undertook a similar trial of HBPC within accountable care organizations (ACOs) funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This trial tested the same model using similar eligibility criteria and recruitment strategies as the earlier trial, yet it failed to achieve its enrollment targets. Objectives: To understand key differences in the trials that contributed to the success of one and failure of the other. Methods: We conducted a comparative case study of the original MCO HBPC trial and the subsequent ACO HBPC trial. Two researchers familiar with both trials reviewed both quantitative and qualitative data obtained from previous analyses and publications to develop a rich, in-depth understanding of each study. Results: We identified four differences that explain in large part why the ACO trial failed while the MCO trial succeeded. These differences center on the trials' setting, target populations, outreach strategies, and providers' understanding of palliative care. Discussion: Our findings demonstrate the challenges in conducting research in complex health care systems and how physician and setting structures along with target population and lack of general palliative care knowledge can influence the success of research. Conclusion: Future HBPC trials must consider the strengths and weaknesses of trial design factors when partnering with multiple health care organizations. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03128060.

Using a qualitative sub-study to inform the design and delivery of randomised controlled trials on medicinal cannabis for symptom relief in patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Recruitment for randomised controlled trials in palliative care can be challenging; disease progression and terminal illness underpin high rates of attrition. Research into participant decision-making in medicinal cannabis randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is very limited. Nesting qualitative sub-studies within RCTs can identify further challenges to participation, informing revisions to study designs and recruitment practices. This paper reports on findings from a qualitative sub-study supporting RCTs of medicinal cannabis for symptom burden relief in patients with advanced cancer in one Australian city.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 48 patients with advanced cancer, eligible to participate in a medicinal cannabis RCT (n=28 who consented to participate in an RCT; n=20 who declined). An iterative and abductive approach to thematic analysis and data collection fostered exploration of barriers and enablers to participation.

RESULTS

Key enablers included participants' enthusiasm and expectations of medicinal cannabis as beneficial (to themselves and future patients) for symptom management, especially after exhausting currently approved options, and a safer alternative to opioids. Some believed medicinal cannabis to have anti-cancer effects. Barriers to participation were the logistical challenges of participating (especially due to driving restrictions and fatigue), reluctance to interfere with an existing care plan, cost, and concerns about receiving the placebo and the uncertainty of the benefit. Some declined due to concerns about side-effects or a desire to continue accessing cannabis independent of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings support revisions to subsequent medicinal cannabis RCT study designs, namely, omitting a requirement that participants attend weekly hospital appointments. These findings highlight the value of embedding qualitative sub-studies into RCTs. While some challenges to RCT recruitment are universal, others are context (population, intervention, location) specific. A barrier to participation found in research conducted elsewhere-stigma-was not identified in the current study. Thus, findings have important implications for those undertaking RCTs in the rapidly developing context of medical cannabis.

Carer preferences of route of administration of transmucosal diamorphine and willingness to take part in a randomised controlled trial: an interview study (DIPPER)

Background

Children and young people are usually given liquid morphine by mouth for breakthrough pain, which can take thirty minutes to work. A faster-acting, quickly absorbed, needle-free pain medicine, that is easy to administer is needed such as transmucosal (sublingual, buccal, intranasal) diamorphine. Research evidence relating to the administration of medication for breakthrough pain in children and young people is limited. This study aims to describe the experiences and preferences of parents and/or children and young people regarding the route of administration of diamorphine, barriers and facilitators comparative to oral morphine, and participation in a randomised controlled trial.

Methods

In-depth, semi-structured interviews with parents and/or children and young people at home or hospital/hospice.

Results

Thirteen interviews with: nine mothers, one father, and three sets of parents jointly. No interviews took place with a child/young person. Most families had experience of the buccal route which was effective in ease of administration and time to control pain. The intranasal route was preferred by parents irrespective of experience. Parents’ willingness for their child to take part in a trial depended on the time commitment, their child’s pain trajectory and the stability of analgesic requirements.

Conclusion

A randomised controlled trial of oral morphine versus transmucosal diamorphine would need to consider trial logistics, especially time commitment. Parents felt that the trial should be introduced initially by the clinical team, with written information from the research team, and sufficient time to ask questions. Patients who had discontinued oral morphine because of side effects, or those with gastrointestinal failure, should be excluded. Maintaining stability in pain management was essential to families, so the timing of the trial is a potential issue.