Home-based supportive care in advanced cancer: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This study systematically reviewed the literature on the effect of home-based supportive care (HbSC) programmes on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

The research question 'Do home-based supportive care programmes for patients with advanced cancer improve their QoL?' was addressed. After registering the plan with PROSPERO (CRD42022341237), literature published from 1 January 1990 to 30 May 2023 was searched on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, CINAHL and Web of Science, and reviewed for inclusion based on predefined criteria. This review only included trial studies published in English.

RESULTS

Of 5,276 articles identified, 17 studies were judged suitable for inclusion in this review. The components of HbSC programmes included home visits, patient and caregiver education, home nursing, psychotherapy, exercise, telephone consultation, and multidisciplinary team meetings. Nine studies reported improvements in QoL, including social functioning, emotional functioning, and subjective QoL.

CONCLUSION

HbSC programmes appear to enable the improvement of the QoL of patients with advanced cancer. The area of QoL that shows improvement could vary depending on the HbSC components. More studies that address HbSC programmes are needed to select patients at the proper time and provide suitable programmes for patients to benefit most.

Effects of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes on patient health outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review

Objective

This study aims to investigate the potential benefits of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinical practice for patients undergoing active anticancer treatment.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving cancer patients undergoing active anticancer treatment, spanning various cancer types and stages. The review covered four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) up to September 2022. Key inclusion criteria focused on the incorporation of PROs as a routine intervention. Bias assessment followed the Cochrane collaboration's criteria, while the synthesis of results utilized effect size measurements (Cohen's d). The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Results

Out of 1549 initially screened records, 16 published randomized controlled trials encompassing 5300 patients met the inclusion criteria. The interventions involved 18 different PROs measurements, with prominent tools being EORTC QLQ-C30 (utilized in four trials) and PRO-CTCAE (utilized in four trials). Measured endpoints included overall quality of life (12 trials), physical health (11 trials), mental health (7 trials), and social health (5 trials). Overall, the study revealed a limited number of statistically significant findings, with predominantly small to moderate effect sizes associated with the interventions.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that the routine integration of PROs into clinical practice does not yield definitive advantages in terms of PROs. It is apparent that further efforts are necessary to ascertain the impact of these interventions on patient health.

Systematic review registration

The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022365456).

Lung Cancer and Self-Management Interventions: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background: Lung cancer is the most common cancer worldwide. Evidence suggests self-management (SM) interventions benefit cancer patients. This review aims to determine the effectiveness of SM interventions for lung cancer patients. Method: Searches occurred in PubMed, Cinahl, ProQuest, Psych Info, Scopus, and Medline, using predefined criteria, assessing randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Results: Five hundred and eighty-seven studies were yielded, 10 RCTs met criteria. Of the total patient pool, 1001 of 1089 had Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Six studies tested home-based SM exercise, two studies SM education, and one each for diary utilisation and symptom reporting. Fatigue was the most targeted function. Other functions targeted included exercise capacity, anxiety, depression, quality of life (QoL), sleep quality, and symptom burden. Six studies met their primary endpoints (five SM exercise, one SM education). Positive outcomes are described for fatigue, anxiety/depression, sleep quality, self-efficacy, and exercise capacity. With exception to fatigue, early-stage NSCLC, younger age, female, never smokers, partnered patients experienced increased treatment effect. Conclusions: SM interventions improve outcomes among some lung cancer patients. Interventions targeting fatigue yield benefit despite histology, stage or gender and could encourage broader cohort engagement. Consideration of patient characteristics may predict SM effect. Effectiveness of home-based SM exercise by NSCLC stage and SM tailored to sociodemographic variables requires further research.

Remote System for Daily Symptom Monitoring During Systemic Anticancer Treatment: Patient Acceptance, Usability, and Compliance

BACKGROUND

Electronic systems for remotely monitoring symptoms during cancer treatment are increasingly being used. Most of them are intended for weekly or periodic symptom monitoring.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and usability of a remote system for daily symptom monitoring during systemic anticancer treatment.

METHODS

We offered a remote system for daily symptom monitoring to patients starting their first ever systemic therapy. Patient acceptance was observed as the proportion of patients showing interest in using the system. System users were invited to complete the "Health information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale," and the number of patients' self-reports was used to evaluate patient compliance.

RESULTS

Of 465 patients, 239 (51.4%) showed interest in using the system; 111 system users reported a fairly good overall usability score (4 of 5), and perceived ease of use scored the highest (4.7 of 5) and perceived usefulness lowest (3.7 of 5). Their daily compliance was 68.8% (±31.1) at 3 weeks and 59.1% (±31.2) at 12 weeks after the start of treatment. Less than half of respondents (49.5%) and only one third (31.2%) perceived that their symptom reports were used by the nurses and doctors, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Half of patients starting their first ever systemic treatment showed interest in using a remote system for daily symptom monitoring. For these patients, daily symptom monitoring seems acceptable, and the system is well complied within the first 12 weeks of treatment.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

A remote system for daily symptom monitoring is feasible and enables quick response to deteriorating symptoms. Use by healthcare professionals is a point of improvement.

The frequency of medical reversals in a cross-sectional analysis of high-impact oncology journals, 2009-2018

Background

Identifying ineffective practices that have been used in oncology is important in reducing wasted resources and harm. We sought to examine the prevalence of practices that are being used but have been shown in RCTs to be ineffective (medical reversals) in published oncology studies.

Methods

We cross-sectionally analyzed studies published in three high-impact oncology medical journals (2009–2018). We abstracted data relating to the frequency and characterization of medical reversals.

Results

Of the 64 oncology reversals, medications (44%) represented the most common intervention type (39% were targeted). Fourteen (22%) were funded by pharmaceutical/industry only and 56% were funded by an organization other than pharmaceutical/industry. The median number of years that the practice had been in use prior to the reversal study was 9 years (range 1–50 years).

Conclusion

Here we show that oncology reversals most often involve the administration of medications, have been practiced for years, and are often identified through studies funded by non-industry organizations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08632-8.

Results from a 1-day workshop on the assessment of quality of life in cancer patients: a joint initiative of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

This report summarizes the presentations and discussion in the first Japan Clinical Oncology Group-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome workshop funded by the National Cancer Center Hospital that was held on Saturday, 1 September 2018 in Tokyo, Japan. The infrastructure and understanding regarding the Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome assessment of cancer patients in Japan is still immature, in spite of the increased demand for oncological Patient-Reported Outcome research felt not only by researchers but also by patients or other stakeholders of cancer drug development. The workshop aimed to share each perspective, common issues to be considered and future perspectives regarding the strong alliance between the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research as well as explore the possibility of conducting collaborative research. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer is a leading international cancer clinical trials organization, and its Quality of Life Group is a global leader in the implementation of Quality of Life research in cancer patients. The three invited speakers from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group presented their perspective, latest methodology and ongoing projects. The three speakers from the Japan Clinical Oncology Group presented their current status, experience and some issues regarding data management or interpretation of the Patient-Reported Outcome data. The two patient advocates also shared their expectations in terms of advances in cancer research based on the Patient-Reported Outcome assessment. As the next steps after this workshop, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer have decided to cooperate more closely to facilitate Patient-Reported Outcome research in both the groups, and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group has approved the establishment of a new committee for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research in Japan.

Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review

Purpose

In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs).

Methods

A systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs.

Results

After screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed.

Conclusion

This review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.

Statistical process control assessed implementation fidelity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care

OBJECTIVES

Ensuring implementation fidelity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the complex clinical setting remains exigent. We aimed to integrate the routine use of PROM reports in day-to-day patient care and assess the implementation outcomes using statistical process control (SPC) methods.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This prospective pilot study used an implementation science framework to integrate PROMs. SPC analysis was applied to track patient completion rates and staff acknowledgment rates over time. Daily observational data across clinical areas were collected to assess potential variations.

RESULTS

Data were available from 324 patient encounters over 14 weeks. On average, 78% (52% to 100%) of eligible patients entering the clinic completed the PROMs; staff acknowledged 78% (50-100%) of these patient reports. Most patterns of fluctuation were inside the control frame. Dips in compliance relating to changes in clinic daily routine, including the introduction of the second randomized clinic, were quickly resolved with a structured response.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of PROMs was feasible with reasonable patient completion and staff acknowledgment rates. Fidelity was vulnerable to barriers impacting the daily routine or unusual events in the clinics, suggesting that greater standardization and integration into clinic processes may yet further improve compliance and consistency of reporting.

How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

In this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.

RESULTS

PROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.

Prospective analysis of the association between skeletal-related events and quality of life in patients with advanced lung cancer (CSP-HOR13)

A prospective study has previously reported on the incidence of bone metastasis (BM) and skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced lung cancer. The aim of the present study was to prospectively investigate how the quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced lung cancer was affected by SREs. Patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or small cell lung cancer (SCLC) at any stage were followed up every four weeks to determine if they had developed SREs. QOL questionnaires were conducted at enrollment, at 3- and 12-months later and at 1 month after the onset of SREs, using QOL scores including the EuroQOL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and activities of daily living (ADL) scores obtained by the Barthel Index. A total of 274 patients were enrolled in the study. At enrollment the EQ-5D and Barthel Index scores were lower in patients with SREs compared with patients without SREs. A chronological analysis revealed no statistically significant changes in either QOL or ADL in any of the patients. For 14 patients in whom QOL data was collected following the onset of SREs, the evaluation undertaken on the four subscales of the FACT-G revealed a significant decline in emotional functioning following the onset of SREs.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could play an important role in identifying patients' needs and goals in clinical encounters, improving communication and decision-making with clinicians, while making care more patient-centred. Comprehensive evidence that PROMS are an effective intervention is lacking in single randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using controlled vocabulary related to the terms: clinical care setting and patient-reported outcome. English language studies were included if they were a RCT with a PROM as an intervention in a patient population. Included studies were analysed and their methodologic quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016034182).

RESULTS

Of 4302 articles initially identified, 115 underwent full-text review resulting in 22 studies reporting on 25 comparisons. The majority of included studies were conducted in USA (11), among cancer patients (11), with adult participants only (20). Statistically significant and robust improvements were reported in the pre-specified outcomes of the process of care (2) and health care (3). Additionally, five, eight and three statistically significant but possibly non-robust findings were reported in the process of care, health and patient satisfaction outcomes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, studies that compared PROM to standard care either reported a positive effect or were not powered to find pre-specified differences. There is justification for the use of a PROM as part of standard care, but further adequately powered studies on their use in different contexts are necessary for a more comprehensive evidence base.

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Background

The feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy.

Objectives

To (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care.

Design

Two separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care.

Interventions

Aggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings.

Main outcome measures

Aggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being.

Data sources

Searches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking.

Review methods

Realist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care.

Results

Providers were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit.

Strengths and limitations

There was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories.

Conclusions

PROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality.

Future work

Future research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005938.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Evidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To inform how payers and providers should identify patients with "advanced illness" and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015).

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49%, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p < 0.05), as did those in congestive heart failure (CHF) (62%, 13 of 21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 58%, 11 of 19), and dementia (60%, 15 of 25). Most prognostic criteria used clinicians' judgment (73%, 22 of 30). Most interventions included a nurse (70%, 69 of 98), and many were nurse-only (39%, 27 of 69). Social workers were well represented, and home-based approaches were common (56%, 70 of 124). Home interventions with visits were more effective than those without (64%, 28 of 44; vs. 46%, 12 of 26). Interventions improved communication and care planning (70%, 12 of 18), psychosocial health (36%, 12 of 33, for depressive symptoms; 41%, 9 of 22, for anxiety), and patient (40%, 8 of 20) and caregiver experiences (63%, 5 of 8). Many interventions reduced hospital use (65%, 11 of 17), but most other economic outcomes, including costs, were poorly characterized. Palliative care teams did not reliably lower healthcare costs (20%, 2 of 10).

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. Effective models include nurses, social workers, and home-based components, and a focus on communication, psychosocial support, and the patient or caregiver experience. High-quality research on intervention costs and cost outcomes in palliative care is limited.

The use and impact of quality of life assessment tools in clinical care settings for cancer patients, with a particular emphasis on brain cancer: insights from a systematic review and stakeholder consultations

Purpose

Patient-reported data are playing an increasing role in health care. In oncology, data from quality of life (QoL) assessment tools may be particularly important for those with limited survival prospects, where treatments aim to prolong survival while maintaining or improving QoL. This paper examines the use and impact of using QoL measures on health care of cancer patients within a clinical setting, particularly those with brain cancer. It also examines facilitators and challenges, and provides implications for policy and practice.

Design

We conducted a systematic literature review, 15 expert interviews and a consultation at an international summit.

Results

The systematic review found no relevant intervention studies specifically in brain cancer patients, and after expanding our search to include other cancers, 15 relevant studies were identified. The evidence on the effectiveness of using QoL tools was inconsistent for patient management, but somewhat more consistent in favour of improving patient–physician communication. Interviews identified unharnessed potential and growing interest in QoL tool use and associated challenges to address.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the use of QoL tools in cancer patients may improve patient–physician communication and have the potential to improve care, but the tools are not currently widely used in clinical practice (in brain cancer nor some other cancer contexts) although they are in clinical trials. There is a need for further research and stakeholder engagement on how QoL tools can achieve most impact across cancer and patient contexts. There is also a need for policy, health professional, research and patient communities to strengthen information exchange and debate, support awareness raising and provide training on tool design, use and interpretation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1278-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of the lung cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire EORTC QLQ-LC13 in clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature 20 years after its development

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) covers 13 typical symptoms of lung cancer patients and was the first module developed in conjunction with the EORTC core quality-of-life (QL) questionnaire. This review investigates how the module has been used and reported in cancer clinical trials in the 20 years since its publication. Thirty-six databases were searched with a prespecified algorithm. This search plus an additional hand search generated 770 hits, 240 of which were clinical studies. Two raters extracted data using a coding scheme. Analyses focused on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 240 clinical studies that were identified using the LC13, 109 (45%) were RCTs. More than half of the RCTs were phase 3 trials (n = 58). Twenty RCTs considered QL as the primary endpoint, and 68 considered it as a secondary endpoint. QL results were addressed in the results section of the article (n = 89) or in the abstract (n = 92); and, in half of the articles, QL results were presented in the form of tables (n = 53) or figures (n = 43). Furthermore, QL results had an impact on the evaluation of the therapy that could be clearly demonstrated in the 47 RCTs that yielded QL differences between treatment and control groups. The EORTC QLQ-LC13 fulfilled its mission to be used as a standard instrument in lung cancer clinical trials. An update of the LC13 is underway to keep up with new therapeutic trends and to ensure optimized and relevant QL assessment in future trials.

Capture, transfer, and feedback of patient-centered outcomes data in palliative care populations: does it make a difference? A systematic review

CONTEXT

Patient-centered outcome measures (PCOMs) are an important way of promoting patient-professional communication. However, evidence regarding their implementation in palliative care is limited, as is evidence of the impact on care quality and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to systematically review evidence on capture and feedback of PCOMs in palliative care populations and determine the effects on processes and outcomes of care.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, BNI, PsycINFO, and gray literature from 1985 to October 2013 for peer-reviewed articles focusing on collection, transfer, and feedback of PCOMs in palliative care populations. Two researchers independently reviewed all included articles. Review articles, feasibility studies, and those not measuring PCOMs in clinical practice were excluded. We quality assessed articles using modified Edwards criteria and undertook narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-four articles used 122 different PCOMs in 70,466 patients. Of these, 16 articles corresponding to 13 studies met the full inclusion criteria. Most evidence was from outpatient oncology. There was strong evidence for an impact of PCOMs feedback on processes of care including better symptom recognition, more discussion of quality of life, and increased referrals based on PCOMs reporting. There was evidence of improved emotional and psychological patient outcomes but no effect on overall quality of life or symptom burden.

CONCLUSION

In palliative care populations, PCOMs feedback improves awareness of unmet need and allows professionals to act to address patients' needs. It consequently benefits patients' emotional and psychological quality of life. However, more high-quality evidence is needed in noncancer populations and across a wider range of settings.

Effectiveness of complex interventions focused on quality-of-life assessment to improve palliative care patients' outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

One of the most crucial palliative care challenges is in determining how patient' needs are defined and assessed. Assessing quality of life has been defined as a priority in palliative care, and it has become a central concept in palliative care practice.

AIM

To determine to what extent interventions focused on measuring quality of life in palliative care practice are effective in improving outcomes in palliative care patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and hand searches.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published until June 2012, and through hand searching from references lists of included articles. Only studies that included adult palliative care patients, in any palliative care clinical practice setting of care, and with an experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational analytical study design were eligible for inclusion. All studies were independently reviewed by two investigators who scored them for methodological quality by using the Edwards Method Score.

RESULTS

In total, 11 articles (of 8579) incorporating information from 10 studies were included. Only three were randomized controlled trials. The quality of the evidence was found from moderate to low. Given a wide variability among patients' outcomes, individual effect size (ES) was possible for 6 out of 10 studies, 3 of which found a moderate ES on symptoms (ES = 0.68) and psychological (ES = 0.60) and social (ES = 0.55) dimensions.

CONCLUSION

Effectiveness of interventions focused on quality-of-life assessment is moderate. Additional studies should explore the complexity of the real palliative care world more accurately and understand the effects of independent variables included in complex palliative care interventions.

Using guided individualised feedback to review self-reported quality of life in health and its importance

This pilot study investigated the effects of providing guided, individualised feedback on subjective quality of life (QoL), using results from the multidimensional WHOQOL-BREF profile. Participants (n = 129; 85 chronically ill) were recruited in the community, and primary care. They were randomised to receive written or verbal guidance on interpreting a new graphical summary profile, which simultaneously presented (a) their individual self-ratings of QoL and (b) the importance attributed to each QoL dimension. Before and after feedback, participants completed health status, subjective QoL, QoL Importance, goal-oriented QoL and mood measures. Receiving individualised feedback was associated with increased psychological QoL, with modest effect size. No effects were found for physical, social or environmental QoL or QoL importance, health status, mood or goal-oriented QoL. There were no differences between modes of delivering guidance, indicating equal effectiveness. Chronic illness participants reported poorer QoL, moved more slowly towards their QoL goals, and had larger differences between core QoL and QoL Importance than healthy participants. Guided individualised empirical feedback about QoL judgements could be used to promote psychological well-being. Although professional interpretation of feedback is unnecessary, if shared, patients' profiled WHOQOL information could support self-monitoring, self-management and clinical decision-making.

A randomized trial of weekly symptom telemonitoring in advanced lung cancer

CONTEXT

Lung cancer patients experience multiple, simultaneous symptoms related to their disease and treatment that impair functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Computer technology can reduce barriers to nonsystematic, infrequent symptom assessment and potentially contribute to improved patient care.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of technology-based symptom monitoring and reporting in reducing symptom burden in patients with advanced lung cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multisite, randomized controlled trial. Two hundred fifty-three patients were enrolled at three sites and randomized to monitoring and reporting (MR) or monitoring alone (MA). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks and symptom surveys via interactive voice response weekly for 12 weeks. MR patients' clinically significant symptom scores generated an e-mail alert to the site nurse for management. The primary endpoint was overall symptom burden; secondary endpoints included HRQL, treatment satisfaction, symptom management barriers, and self-efficacy.

RESULTS

This randomized controlled trial failed to demonstrate efficacy of symptom monitoring and reporting in reducing symptom burden compared with monitoring alone in lung cancer. HRQL declined over 12 weeks in both groups (P < 0.006 to P < 0.025); at week 12, treatment satisfaction was higher in MA than MR patients (P < 0.012, P < 0.027). Adherence to weekly calls was good (82%) and patient satisfaction was high.

CONCLUSION

Feasibility of using a technology-based system for systematic symptom monitoring in advanced lung cancer patients was demonstrated. Future research should focus on identifying patients most likely to benefit and other patient, provider, and health system factors likely to contribute to the system's success.

How are palliative care cancer populations characterized in randomized controlled trials? A literature review

CONTEXT

The difficulties in defining a palliative care patient accentuate the need to provide stringent descriptions of the patient population in palliative care research.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying which key variables have been used to describe adult palliative care cancer populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The data sources used were MEDLINE (1950 to January 25, 2010) and Embase (1980 to January 25, 2010), limited to RCTs in adult cancer patients with incurable disease. Forty-three variables were systematically extracted from the eligible articles.

RESULTS

The review includes 336 articles reporting RCTs in palliative care cancer patients. Age (98%), gender (90%), cancer diagnosis (89%), performance status (45%), and survival (45%) were the most frequently reported variables. A large number of other variables were much less frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial variation exists in how palliative care cancer populations are described in RCTs. Few variables are consistently registered and reported. There is a clear need to standardize the reporting. The results from this work will serve as the basis for an international Delphi process with the aim of reaching consensus on a minimum set of descriptors to characterize a palliative care cancer population.

What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials

PURPOSE

The systematic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advocated as an effective way to standardize cancer practice. Yet, the question of whether PROMs can lead to actual improvements in the quality of patient care remains under debate. This review examined whether inclusion of PROM in routine clinical practice is associated with improvements in patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes during active anticancer treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection [PBSC]) was conducted from database inception to May 2012 to locate randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials of patients receiving active anticancer treatment or supportive care irrespective of type of cancer.

RESULTS

Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 26 articles that reported on 24 unique controlled trials. Wide variability in the design and use of interventions delivered, outcomes evaluated, and cancer- and modality-specific context was apparent. Health service outcomes were only scarcely included as end points. Overall, the number of statistically significant findings were limited and PROMs' intervention effect sizes were predominantly small-to-moderate.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of PROMs increases the frequency of discussion of patient outcomes during consultations. In some studies, PROMs are associated with improved symptom control, increased supportive care measures, and patient satisfaction. Additional effort is required to ensure patient adherence, as well as additional support to clinicians who will respond to patient concerns and issues, with clear system guidelines in place to guide their responses. More research is required to support PROM cost-benefit in terms of patient safety, clinician burden, and health services usage.

Methods for improving the quality of palliative care delivery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness for improving the outcomes across palliative care domains remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of different types of quality improvement interventions relevant to palliative care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane for relevant articles published between 2000 and 2011.

RESULTS

A total of 10 randomized controlled trials and 7 nonrandomized controlled trials were included. Of the 5 studies using relay of clinical information, 1 reported significant improvement in patient quality of life. Of the 5 studies targeting education and self-management, 4 found significant improvements in quality of life or patient symptoms.

CONCLUSION

A minority of quality improvement interventions have succeeded in improving the quality of palliative care delivery. More studies are needed on specific quality improvement types, including organizational change and multiple types of interventions.

Defining the palliative care patient: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The lack of a clear definition of the palliative care patient hampers the comparison of results across different studies and impedes implementation of research findings in everyday practice.

AIM

The aim of this article is to propose minimum characteristics that define a palliative care patient.

DESIGN

The design involved a systematic review of medical literature searching randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in palliative care for clear descriptions of their palliative care patients. We systematically describe relevant characteristics of the study populations of 60 eligible RCTs.

DATA SOURCES

The data sources used were MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PSYCHINFO, including all non-cancer RCTs (1 January 1995-4 March 2010) and an equivalent number of the most recent cancer RCTs (1 January 2003-4 March 2010).

RESULTS

Half of the non-cancer studies were excluded because they did not relate to palliative care. We conclude that published RCTs have no clear definitions of their palliative care patients and illustrate the diversity of this patient, the lack of consensus concerning the attributes of illnesses needing palliation and the ambiguous use of the adjective 'palliative'.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose elements of the patients' health status (e.g. a progressive, life-threatening disease with no possibility of obtaining remission or stabilisation, or modifying the course of the illness) and the care delivered to them (e.g. a holistic interdisciplinary approach that focuses on supporting the quality of the end of life) to be included in the definition of a palliative care patient. We also suggest considering the patients' readiness to accept palliative care and a vision of palliative care shared by the patient and all caregivers involved as potentially important elements in this definition.

Screening for cancer-related distress: when is implementation successful and when is it unsuccessful?

OBJECTIVE

Screening for distress is controversial with many advocates and detractors. Previously it was reasonable to assert that there was a lack of evidence but this position is no longer tenable. The question is now: what does the evidence show and, in particular, when is screening successful and when is screening unsuccessful? The aim of this paper is to review the most up-to-date recent findings from randomized and non-randomized trials regarding the merits of screening for distress in cancer settings.

METHODS

A search was made of the Embase/Medline and Web of knowledge abstract databases from inception to December 2012. Online theses and experts were contacted. Inclusion criteria were interventional (randomized and non-randomized) trials concerning screening for psychological distress and related disorders. Studies screening for quality of life were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-four valid interventional studies of distress/QoL screening were identified, 14 being randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six of 14 screening RCTs reported benefits on patient well-being and an additional three showed benefits on secondary outcomes such as communication between clinicians and patients. Five randomized screening trials failed to show any benefits. Only two of 10 non-randomized sequential cohort screening studies reported benefits on patient well-being but an additional six showed secondary benefits on quality of care (such as receipt of psychosocial referral). Two non-randomized screening trials failed to show benefits. Of 24 studies, there were 17 that reported some significant benefits of screening on primary or secondary outcomes, six that reported no effect and one that reported a non-significantly deleterious effect upon communication. Across all studies, barriers to screening success were significant. The most significant barrier was receipt of appropriate aftercare. The proportion of cancer patients who received psychosocial care after a positive distress screen was only one in three. Screening was more effective when it was linked with mandatory intervention or referral.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for distress/QoL is likely to benefit communication and referral for psychosocial help. Screening for distress has the potential to influence patient well-being but only if barriers are addressed. Quality of care barriers often act as a rate limiting step. Key barriers are lack of training and support, low acceptability and failure to link treatment to the screening results.

Appropriateness of the treatment of fatigued patients with stage IV cancer

BACKGROUND

Fatigue among patients with cancer is prevalent, disabling, and treatable. While fatigue management guidelines have been in place for a decade, their use remains unclear.

METHODS

We surveyed 160 patients with stage IV lung (40), breast (40), colon (40), and prostate (40) cancer who reported moderate to severe fatigue (i.e., >5 of 10 on an 11-point numerical rating scale). Participants were queried about receipt of treatments in fatigue management domains emphasized in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines: general management strategies, activity enhancement, psychosocial strategies, and pharmaceuticals.

RESULTS

The cohort was half male, had a mean age of 67, and reported an average fatigue rating of 6.4. Participants reported treatment or receipt of specific guidance in the fatigue management domains as follows: general management strategies 16.8 %, activity enhancement 11.9 %, psychosocial strategies 9.9 %, and pharmaceuticals 37.3 %. Fatigue >7 of 10 increased the likelihood of instruction in activity enhancement but no other domain.

CONCLUSION

The low rates of guideline-congruent treatment reported here are concerning, particularly as better validated behavioral treatments were the least prescribed.

Interventions to improve continuity of care in the follow-up of patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Care from the family physician is generally interrupted when patients with cancer come under the care of second-line and third-line healthcare professionals who may also manage the patient's comorbid conditions. This situation may lead to fragmented and uncoordinated care, and results in an increased likelihood of not receiving recommended preventive services or recommended care.

OBJECTIVES

To classify, describe and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve continuity of cancer care on patient, healthcare provider and process outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, using a strategy incorporating an EPOC Methodological filter. Reference lists of the included study reports and relevant reviews were also scanned, and ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar were used to identify relevant reports having cited the studies included in this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (including cluster trials), controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series evaluating interventions to improve continuity of cancer care were considered for inclusion. We included studies that involved a majority (> 50%) of adults with cancer or healthcare providers of adults with cancer. Primary outcomes considered for inclusion were the processes of healthcare services, objectively measured healthcare professional, informal carer and patient outcomes, and self-reported measures performed with scales deemed valid and reliable. Healthcare professional satisfaction was included as a secondary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers described the interventions, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The authors contacted several investigators to obtain missing information. Interventions were regrouped by type of continuity targeted, model of care or interventional strategy and were compared to usual care. Given the expected clinical and methodological diversity, median changes in outcomes (and bootstrap confidence intervals) among groups of studies that shared specific features of interest were chosen to analyse the effectiveness of included interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included. They used three different models, namely case management, shared care, and interdisciplinary teams. Six additional interventional strategies were used besides these models: (1) patient-held record, (2) telephone follow-up, (3) communication and case discussion between distant healthcare professionals, (4) change in medical record system, (5) care protocols, directives and guidelines, and (6) coordination of assessments and treatment.Based on the median effect size estimates, no significant difference in patient health-related outcomes was found between patients assigned to interventions and those assigned to usual care. A limited number of studies reported psychological health, satisfaction of providers, or process of care measures. However, they could not be regrouped to calculate median effect size estimates because of a high heterogeneity among studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from this Cochrane review do not allow us to conclude on the effectiveness of included interventions to improve continuity of care on patient, healthcare provider or process of care outcomes. Future research should evaluate interventions that target an improvement in continuity as their primary objective and describe these interventions with the categories proposed in this review. Also of importance, continuity measures should be validated with persons with cancer who have been followed in various settings.

Screening for Distress and Unmet Needs in Patients With Cancer: Review and Recommendations

Purpose

This review summarizes the need for and process of screening for distress and assessing unmet needs of patients with cancer as well as the possible benefits of implementing screening.

Methods

Three areas of the relevant literature were reviewed and summarized using structured literature searches: psychometric properties of commonly used distress screening tools, psychometric properties of relevant unmet needs assessment tools, and implementation of distress screening programs that assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Results

Distress and unmet needs are common problems in cancer settings, and programs that routinely screen for and treat distress are feasible, particularly when staff are supported and links with specialist psychosocial services exist. Many distress screening and unmet need tools have been subject to preliminary validation, but few have been compared head to head in independent centers and in different stages of cancer. Research investigating the overall effectiveness of screening for distress in terms of improved recognition and treatment of distress and associated problems is not yet conclusive, but screening seems to improve communication between patients and clinicians and may enhance psychosocial referrals. Direct effects on quality of life are uncertain, but screening may help improve discussion of quality-of-life issues.

Conclusion

Involving all stakeholders and frontline clinicians when planning screening for distress programs is recommended. Training frontline staff to deliver screening programs is crucial, and continuing to rigorously evaluate outcomes, including PROs, process of care, referrals, and economic costs and benefits is essential.

[How to improve cancer patients' satisfaction with medical information]

The medical information becomes integrated into a communications strategy, the generally admitted model of which is centered on the patient; that is in the listening of these concerns and these values. The medical quality information is facilitated by the preliminary collection of the symptoms and the needs of the patients thanks to the questionnaires of quality of life, if they are used during the consultation to direct the discussion. Satisfactory medical information includes a discussion about the questions of the patients in terms of outcomes. Patient's individual factors can influence the need of medical information, as the age and the pathology. Patient's needs can also vary with time and according to the phase of the disease. Cultural factors are essential, in particular as regards the information about prognosis. Tools to help giving the medical information are now validated as the audio cassettes or video. Those tools can take the shape of a prompt list to help patients to ask questions. The majority preference of style of participation in the medical and therapeutic decisions and is the collaborative mode. Physician's attitude is determinant to leave the patients who wish it to have an active role, what allows them a very beneficial feeling psychologically of control over the disease. Decision-making helps are successfully sometimes elaborated to support the participation of the patients. In palliative phase, the need of medical information about prognosis associated with preservation of hope is not still understood by physicians who oscillate between saying the all or none. Honest information at the right time is the majority wish of the patients, although certain patients adopt clearly a strategy of avoidance. The medical communication requires a specific training on this subject. Talking time must be opened to the doctors to approach the relational problems which they meet. The clinical research has to continue to understand better the interactions in doctors/patients communication.