Promoting End-of-Life Discussions in Advanced Cancer: Effects of Patient Coaching and Question Prompt Lists

What influences provision of information about recovery on stroke units? A focused ethnographic case study

OBJECTIVE

Patients and carers frequently report dissatisfaction with post-stroke information provision. This study aimed to develop an in-depth understanding of the factors influencing provision of information about recovery in stroke units.

METHODS

Focused ethnographic case-studies in two UK stroke units, including non-participant observations and semi-structured interviews with professionals, patients and carers, and documentary analysis. A Framework approach to analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Twenty patients, 17 carers and 47 professionals participated. The unpredictable recovery trajectory led professionals to present prognostic estimates as uncertain possibilities. The need to maintain patients' motivation limited sharing of negative predictions, and generic information over-emphasised the importance of therapy in recovery. A structured multidisciplinary team approach to delivering information improved consistency. Complex clinical reasoning was required to identify and meet patients' needs. Hospital environments and routines restricted opportunities for dialogue, particularly with carers.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of providing information about post-stroke recovery is complex, requiring enhanced clinical reasoning and communication. The challenges faced by professionals are numerous and if not addressed can result in suboptimal provision.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Professionals should develop a co-ordinated multidisciplinary approach to information provision; and engage in dialogue to ensure a tailored approach to identifying and meeting patients' and carers' information needs.

Cultivating Relationship-Centered Care: Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Communication Preferences for and Experiences with Prognostic Conversations

Prognostic conversations present many challenges for patients, caregivers, and providers alike. Most research examining the context of prognostic conversations have used a more siloed approach to gather the range of perspectives of those involved, typically through the lens of patient-centered care. However, the mutual influence evident in prognostic conversations suggests a relationship-centered care model may be useful in cancer communication research. Similarities and differences in preferences for and experiences with prognostic conversations among oncology patients, caregivers, and providers (N = 32) were explored. Identified themes were then mapped to the principles of the relationship-centered care framework to extend our understanding of prognostic conversations and contribute to a new direction in the application of relationship-centered care. Findings suggest fewer similarities than differences, point to important discrepancies among participant perspectives, and reinforce the utility of relationship-centered care in identifying communication practices that enhance the prognostic conversation experience.

'I secretly wish. . .' Caregivers' expression of wish for death of persons with severe dementia

BACKGROUND

Qualitative evidence suggests that caregivers may express a wish for death of persons with severe dementia (PwSD). No study has assessed the extent to which it happens, stability of this wish over time and the factors associated with it.

OBJECTIVES

We examined caregivers' wish for death of PwSDs overtime and the factors associated with this wish.

METHODS

215 caregivers of community dwelling PwSDs were surveyed every 4 months for 2 years. Using the mixed-effects multinomial regression model, we assessed the PwSD and caregiver factors associated with caregivers' wish for PwSDs' death.

RESULTS

At baseline, 27% caregivers expressed a wish for PwSDs' life to end sooner. Overall, 43% of the caregivers expressed a wish for PwSDs' death at least once during the study period and 11% expressed it consistently. Caregivers' perception of PwSDs' lower quality of life (RRR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.10), higher functional dependency (RRR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.21), eating difficulty (RRR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.26, 4.04) and suffering (RRR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.05, 3.52) were associated with this wish. Caregivers who were emotionally close to PwSDs were less likely (RRR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.55) while those who understood that dementia is a terminal illness were more likely (RRR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.03, 3.92) to express this wish.

CONCLUSION

Caregivers' wish for PwSDs' death changed over time and was primarily driven by their perception of PwSDs' poor well-being and awareness of their illness being terminal, indicating a need for increased support in this challenging caregiving context.

Question prompt list intervention for patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced communication in end-of-life care (EOL) improves preparation and treatment decisions for patients with advanced cancer, affecting their quality of life at the end of life. Question prompt list (QPL) has been shown to enhance physician-patient communication in patients with cancer, but there is a lack of systematic review and meta-analysis for those with advanced cancer. Enhanced communication in end-of-life care improves preparation and treatment decisions for patients with advanced cancer, affecting their quality of life at the end of life.

OBJECTIVE

To review the effectiveness of QPL intervention on physician-patient communication and health outcomes during consultation in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases were undertaken using inclusion criteria for relevant articles up to August 2021. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool and modified Jadad scale to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 1059 participants were included, of which six studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled meta-analysis results indicated that QPL in patients with advanced cancer had a significant positive effect on the total number of questions asked (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.18; I2 = 83%) and on the patients' expectations for the future (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.08 to 1.25; I2 = 88%). There were no significant improvements in health-related outcomes such as end of life, anxiety, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Using QPL in advanced cancer consultations boosts patient questions which helps communication but not health-related indicators. Optimal results depend on full reading, but timing varies. Future research should examine the relationship between communication and health outcomes, including patient/physician behavior and social context.

Understanding how shared decision-making approaches and patient aids influence patients with advanced cancer when deciding on palliative treatments and care: A realist review

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced incurable cancer face difficult decisions about palliative treatment options towards their end of life. However, they are often not provided with the appropriate information and support that is needed to make informed decisions. This review aimed to identify contexts and mechanisms associated with communication tools, patient decision-aids and shared decision-making (SDM) approaches that influence patient outcomes.

METHODS

We used a realist review method to search for published studies of patients (adults > 18) with advanced cancer who were expected to make a decision about palliative treatment and/or supportive care in consultation with healthcare practitioners. We appraised and synthesised literature describing the contexts of (when and how) decision aids and SDM approaches are used, and how these contexts interact with mechanisms (resources and reasoning) which impact patient outcomes. Stakeholders including academics, palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with lived experience of supporting people with advanced incurable cancer contributed to identifying explanatory accounts. These accounts were documented, analysed and consolidated to contribute to the development of a programme theory.

RESULTS

From the 33 included papers, we consolidated findings into 20 explanatory accounts to develop a programme theory that explains key contexts and mechanisms that influence patient and SDM. Contexts include underlying patients' and HCPs' attitudes and approaches. These need to be understood in relation to key mechanisms, including presenting information in multiple formats and providing adequate time and opportunities to prepare for and revisit decisions. Contexts influenced mechanisms which then influence the levels of patient decisional satisfaction, conflict and regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Our programme theory highlights mechanisms that are important in supporting shared treatment decisions for advanced noncurative cancer. The findings are informative for developing and evaluating interventions to improve understanding and involvement in SDM for patients with advanced incurable cancer.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We included patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives in four stakeholder meetings. PPI helped to define the scope of the review, identify their unique experiences and perspectives, synthesise their perspectives with our review findings, make decisions about which theories we included in our programme theory and develop recommendations for policy and practice and future research.

Quality of cancer treatment care before and after a palliative care pathway: bereaved relatives' perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Appropriate communication between healthcare providers and patients and their families is an essential part of good (palliative) care. We investigated whether implementation of a standardised palliative care pathway (PCP) facilitated communication, that is, aspects of shared decision-making (SDM), including advance care planning (ACP) conversations and satisfaction with care as experienced by bereaved relatives of patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective preintervention and postintervention study in a hospital. Questionnaires were sent to relatives of patients who died between February 2014 and February 2015 (pre-PCP period) or between November 2015 and November 2016 (post-PCP period). Relatives' perceptions on communication and satisfaction with care were assessed using parts of the Views of Informal Carers-Evaluation of Services and IN-PATSAT32 Questionnaires.

RESULTS

195 (46%) and 180 (42%) bereaved relatives completed the questionnaire in the pre-PCP and post-PCP period, respectively. The majority of all patients in both the pre-PCP period and the post-PCP period had been told they had an incurable illness (92% and 89%, respectively, p=0.544), mostly in the presence of a relative (88% and 85%, respectively, p=0.865) and had discussed their preferences for end-of-life (EOL) treatment (82% and 76%, respectively, p=0.426). Bereaved relatives were reasonably satisfied with the received hospital care in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no overall effect of the PCP on the communication process and satisfaction with EOL care of bereaved relatives. Before the use of the PCP bereaved relatives already reported favourably about the EOL care provided.

Optimizing the design and implementation of question prompt lists to support person-centred care: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Question prompt lists (QPLs) are lists of questions that patients may want to discuss with clinicians. QPLs support person-centred care and have been associated with many beneficial outcomes including improved patient question-asking, and the amount and quality of the information provided by clinicians. The purpose of this study was to review published research on QPLs to explore how QPL design and implementation can be optimized.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Database from inception to 8 May 2022, for English language studies of any design that evaluated QPLs. We used summary statistics and text to report study characteristics, and QPL design and implementation.

RESULTS

We included 57 studies published from 1988 to 2022 by authors in 12 countries on a range of clinical topics. Of those, 56% provided the QPL, but few described how QPLs were developed. The number of questions varied widely (range 9-191). Most QPLs were single-page handouts (44%) but others ranged from 2 to 33 pages. Most studies implemented a QPL alone with no other accompanying strategy; most often in a print format before consultations by mail (18%) or in the waiting room (66%). Both patients and clinicians identified numerous benefits to patients of QPLs (e.g., increased patient confidence to ask questions, and patient satisfaction with communication or care received; and reduced anxiety about health status or treatment). To support use, patients desired access to QPLs in advance of clinician visits, and clinicians desired information/training on how to use the QPL and answer questions. Most (88%) studies reported at least one beneficial impact of QPLs. This was true even for single-page QPLs with few questions unaccompanied by other implementation strategies. Despite favourable views of QPLs, few studies assessed outcomes amongst clinicians.

CONCLUSION

This review identified QPL characteristics and implementation strategies that may be associated with beneficial outcomes. Future research should confirm these findings via systematic review and explore the benefits of QPLs from the clinician's perspective.

PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Following this review, we used the findings to develop a QPL on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and interviewed women and clinicians about QPL design including content, format, enablers and barriers of use, and potential outcomes including beneficial impacts and possible harms (will be published elsewhere).

Development and Acceptability of a Kidney Therapy Decision Aid for Patients Aged 75 Years and Older: A Design-Based Research Involving Patients, Caregivers, and a Multidisciplinary Team

Rationale & Objective

Many older adults prefer quality of life over longevity, and some prefer conservative kidney management (CKM) over dialysis. There is a lack of patient-decision aids for adults aged 75 years or older facing kidney therapy decisions, which not only include information on dialysis and CKM but also encourage end-of-life planning. We iteratively developed a paper-based patient-decision aid for older people with low literacy and conducted surveys to assess its acceptability.

Study Design

Design-based research.

Setting and Participants

Informed by design-based research principles and theory of behavioral activation, a multidisciplinary team of experts created a first version of the patient-decision aid containing 2 components: (1) educational material about kidney therapy options such as CKM, and (2) a question prompt list relevant to kidney therapy and end-of-life decision making. On the basis of the acceptability input of patients and caregivers, separate qualitative interviews of 35 people receiving maintenance dialysis, and with the independent feedback of educated layperson, we further modified the patient-decision aid to create a second version.

Analytical Approach

We used descriptive statistics to present the results of acceptability surveys and thematic content analyses for patients' qualitative interviews.

Results

The mean age of patients (n=21) who tested the patient-decision aid was 80 years and the mean age of caregivers (n=9) was 70 years. All respondents held positive views about the educational component and would recommend the educational component to others (100% patients and caregivers). Most of the patients reported that the question prompt list helped them put concerns into words (80% patients and 88% caregivers) and would recommend the question prompt list to others (95% patients and 100% caregivers).

Limitations

Single-center study.

Conclusions

Both components of the patient-decision aid received high acceptability ratings. We plan to launch a larger effectiveness study to test the outcomes of a decision-supporting intervention combining the patient-decision aid with palliative care-based decision coaching.

Helpfulness of Question Prompt Sheet for Patient-Physician Communication Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

There are few robust evaluations of disease-specific question prompt sheets (QPS) in patient-physician communication among patients with advanced cancer.

Objective

To compare the patient perception of helpfulness, global evaluation, and preference for the QPS vs a general information sheet (GIS), and to examine the effect of the QPS on participants' anxiety, participants' speaking time, number of questions asked, and length of the clinical encounter.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at an outpatient palliative and supportive care clinic in a cancer center in the US. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a cancer diagnosis, and were undergoing their first outpatient consultation visit with a palliative care physician from September 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Data analysis used a modified intention-to-treat design. Data were analyzed from May 18 to June 27, 2022.

Intervention

QPS, a 25-item list of questions developed by expert palliative care clinicians using a Delphi process and tested among ambulatory advanced cancer patients. The control was GIS, generic information material given routinely to patients seen at the supportive care clinic.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was patient perception of helpfulness. Secondary outcomes included global evaluation and preference of QPS compared with GIS immediately after the encounter.

Results

A total of 130 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [13.3] years; 79 [60.8%] female) were randomized to receive either QPS (67 patients [51.5%]) or GIS (63 patients [48.5%]). Patients considered QPS and GIS equally helpful, with no statistically significant difference (mean [SD] helpfulness score, 7.2 [2.3] points vs 7.1 [2.7] points; P = .79). The QPS group, compared with the GIS group, had a higher global positive view of the material (mean [SD] global perception score, 7.1 [1.3] vs 6.5 [1.7]; P = .03) and felt it prompted them more to generate new questions (mean [SD] rating, 7.0 [2.9] vs 5.3 [3.5]; P = .005). Of 47 patients asked their preference between the items, more participants preferred the QPS to the GIS in communicating with their physicians (24 patients [51.1%] vs 7 patients [14.9%]; P = .01) at the 4-week follow-up. No significant differences between the QPS and GIS groups were observed regarding participant anxiety, speaking time, number of questions asked, or consultation length (eg, mean [SD] anxiety rating, 2.3 [3.7] vs 1.6 [2.7]; P = .19).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, participants perceived both QPS and GIS as equally helpful, but they had a more positive global view of and preferred the QPS. QPS facilitated generation of new questions without increasing patient anxiety nor prolonging the consultation. The findings provide support for increased adoption and integration of QPS into routine oncologic care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03287492.

Effects of a Patient Question Prompt List on Question Asking and Self-Efficacy During Outpatient Palliative Care Appointments

CONTEXT

Question prompt lists (QPLs) promote participation during medical appointments, including in the context of serious illness care. However, no studies have used parameters of a theoretical framework to examine the effects of QPL use in outpatient palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

The current pilot randomized controlled trial evaluated use of a 25-question QPL during initial outpatient palliative care appointments. We applied tenets of Self-Efficacy Theory to investigate how use of a QPL affected appointment participation and perceived self-efficacy.

METHODS

Participants were patients and care partners attending the patient's first palliative care appointment. Participants either received a QPL before the appointment (n = 29 appointments) or usual care (n = 30 appointments). Audio recordings of appointments were coded for total questions asked. Participants reported perceived self-efficacy in question asking pre- and postappointment. Analysis of variance was used to compare appointment participation between study conditions, and a linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in ratings of perceived self-efficacy.

RESULTS

Participants who received the QPL did not ask significantly more questions compared to participants in usual-care appointments. There was a main effect of time on self-efficacy in question asking, such that self-efficacy increased from pre- to postappointment, but there was no effect of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Despite their promise in previous studies, results of the current study suggest that QPLs may lack potency to shift patient and care partner question asking in palliative care appointments, and that other mechanisms outlined in Self-Efficacy Theory may characterize the relation between question asking and self-efficacy.

Effectiveness of a facilitation programme using a mobile application for initiating advance care planning discussions between patients with advanced cancer and healthcare providers: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (J-SUPPORT 2104)

INTRODUCTION

Timely implementation of the discussion process of advance care planning (ACP) is recommended. The communication attitude of healthcare providers is critical in ACP facilitation; thus, improving their communication attitudes may reduce patient distress and unnecessary aggressive treatment while enhancing care satisfaction. Digital mobile devices are being developed for behavioural interventions owing to their low space and time restrictions and ease of information sharing. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention programme using an application intended to facilitate patient questioning behaviour on improving communication related to ACP between patients with advanced cancer and healthcare providers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study uses a parallel-group, evaluator-blind, randomised controlled trial design. We plan to recruit 264 adult patients with incurable advanced cancer at the National Cancer Centre in Tokyo, Japan. Intervention group participants use a mobile application ACP programme and undergo a 30 min interview with a trained intervention provider for discussions with the oncologist at the next patient visit, while control group participants continue their usual treatment. The primary outcome is the oncologist's communication behaviour score assessed using audiorecordings of the consultation. Secondary outcomes include communication between patients and oncologists and the patients' distress, quality of life, care goals and preferences, and medical care utilisation. We will use a full analysis set including the registered participant population who receive at least a part of the intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Scientific Advisory Board of the Japan Supportive, Palliative and Psychosocial Oncology Group (Registration No. 2104) and the Institutional Review Board of the National Cancer Centre Hospital (registration No. 2020-500). Written informed consent is obtained from the patients. The results of the trial will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

UMIN000045305, NCT05045040.

Impact of advance care planning and end-of-life conversations on patients with cancer: An integrative review of literature

PURPOSE

The purpose was to review published articles to examine the impact of advance care planning (ACP) and end-of-life (EOL) conversations on patients with cancer, and aimed to compare the findings for congruency with the goals of ACP.

DESIGN AND METHOD

The study was guided by Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review methodology. Articles published between 2015 to 2020 were identified through electronic databases. The search included: Cumulative Index for Nursing Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, MEDLINE-Ovid, and MEDLINE full text, and using the MeSH terms. Two hundred and five (205) articles were identified and screened for eligibility, and 15 articles were appraised.

FINDINGS

The fifteen (15) articles that met the inclusion criteria included five (5) qualitative, eight (8) quantitative, and two (2) mixed methods. The review analysis revealed six themes emerged in three categories: cancer patients' experience with advance care planning (1) patients' prognostic awareness, (2) decision making; cancer patients' perceived outcomes with advance care planning (3) patient-provider relationship, (4) concordance in care based on goals, and cancer patients' propositions related to advance care planning, (5) timings of advance care planning discussions, and (6) support during ACP and/or EOL conversations.

CONCLUSION

ACP and EOL conversations play a critical role in cancer patients' awareness of their disease and prognosis and help them in making end-of-life care decisions.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There exists a need for earlier ACP and EOL conversations with cancer patients with emotional support during these conversations.

Cancer Caregivers' Prognostic and End-of-Life Communication Needs and Experiences and their Impact

CONTEXT

Family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer are integrally involved in communications regarding prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) planning and care. Yet little research has examined caregivers' communication experiences or the impact of these experiences on patients and caregivers at EOL.

OBJECTIVES

Investigate cancer caregivers' communication experiences and potential impact on patient and caregiver outcomes.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews with bereaved family cancer caregivers (N=19) about their communication needs and experiences as their loved one approached EOL and died. Audiotaped interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed for communication-related themes.

RESULTS

Caregivers described fulfilling many important communication roles including information gathering and sharing, advocating, and facilitating-often coordinating communication with multiple partners (e.g., patient, family, oncology team, hospital team). Caregivers reported that, among the many topics they communicated about, prognosis and EOL were the most consequential and challenging. These challenges arose for several reasons including caregivers' and patients' discordant communication needs, limited opportunity for caregivers to satisfy their personal communication needs, uncertainty regarding their communication needs and responsibilities, and feeling unacknowledged by the care team. These challenges negatively impacted caregivers' abilities to satisfy their patient-related communication responsibilities, which shaped many outcomes including end-of-life decisions, care satisfaction, and bereavement.

CONCLUSION

Caregivers often facilitate essential communication for patients with advanced cancers yet face challenges successfully fulfilling their own and patients' communication needs, particularly surrounding prognostic and end-of-life conversations. Future research and interventions should explore strategies to help caregivers navigate uncertainty, create space to ask sensitive questions, and facilitate patient-caregiver discussions about differing informational needs.

Strategies to Understand What Matters to Advanced Cancer Patients in Advance Care Planning: A Qualitative Study Using the Lifeline Interview Method

Little is known about how health care providers should conduct advance care planning to identify the values of East Asian patients who have serious illnesses. This study aims to explore whether and how patients from an East Asian culture and with advanced cancer express their values and priorities when nurses utilize the lifeline interview method to enable patients to reflect on their life trajectories and if it can bridge advance care planning discussions. Data obtained from individual, semistructured interviews of 11 patients with advanced lung cancer were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Seven main themes were identified: (1) treatment and essential elements to maintaining everyday life, (2) beliefs regarding and support for being "myself", (3) emotional ups and downs in response to physical condition, (4) competency to cope, (5) what I want to do "now" to achieve my goals, (6) goals that bring hope for life, and (7) wishes and preferences for end-of-life decision-making. Results suggest that the lifeline interview method is an excellent means for nurses and other health care professionals to elicit patients' values and priorities. Moreover, it bridges advance care planning discussions to reflect on what matters to patients in future palliative care.

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.

What is the evidence for efficacy of advance care planning in improving patient outcomes? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Objectives

To conduct an up-to-date systematic review of all randomised controlled trials assessing efficacy of advance care planning (ACP) in improving patient outcomes, healthcare use/costs and documentation.

Design

Narrative synthesis conducted for randomised controlled trials. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases) for English-language randomised or cluster randomised controlled trials on 11 May 2020 and updated it on 12 May 2021 using the same search strategy. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer.

Results

We reviewed 132 eligible trials published between 1992 and May 2021; 64% were high-quality. We categorised study outcomes as patient (distal and proximal), healthcare use and process outcomes. There was mixed evidence that ACP interventions improved distal patient outcomes including end-of-life care consistent with preferences (25%; 3/12 with improvement), quality of life (0/14 studies), mental health (21%; 4/19) and home deaths (25%; 1/4), or that it reduced healthcare use/costs (18%; 4/22 studies). However, we found more consistent evidence that ACP interventions improve proximal patient outcomes including quality of patient–physician communication (68%; 13/19), preference for comfort care (70%; 16/23), decisional conflict (64%; 9/14) and patient-caregiver congruence in preference (82%; 18/22) and that it improved ACP documentation (a process outcome; 63%; 34/54).

Conclusion

This review provides the most comprehensive evidence to date regarding the efficacy of ACP on key patient outcomes and healthcare use/costs. Findings suggest a need to rethink the main purpose and outcomes of ACP.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020184080.

Question prompt lists to improve communication between cancer patients and healthcare professionals

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This literature review sets out to summarize knowledge on the impact of question prompt lists (QPLs) on patient-physician communication in oncology and to provide an account of current research on the development, adaptation, and implementation of this type of communication tool.

RECENT FINDINGS

Provided with a QPL, patients seem to ask more questions, in particular on sensitive issues like those around the end-of-life period and they recall the information provided better. There is a need to adapt QPLs, taking account of divergences in attitudes towards illness, participation in decision-making, and discussions about the illness prognosis across cultures. QPLs may also need to be tailored to specific concerns of patients at the different stages in the care trajectory and to the particularities of each cancer type. These adaptations contribute to the effectiveness of the tool because they make it possible to tailor it to the challenges and constraints experienced in clinical practice.

SUMMARY

QPLs are designed to enhance patients' communication with their physicians. Further research is required to develop QPLs suited to each cultural and clinical setting, involving health professionals so as to facilitate the implementation of these tools in routine practice.

Initiation of paediatric advance care planning: Cross-sectional survey of health professionals reported behaviour

BACKGROUND

Globally, initiation of paediatric advance care planning discussions is advocated early in the illness trajectory; however, evidence suggests it occurs at crisis points or close to end of life. Few studies have been undertaken to ascertain the prevalence and determinants of behaviour related to initiation by the healthcare professional.

METHOD

Underpinned by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model for behaviour change, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted in United Kingdom and Ireland using a purposive sample of health professionals. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied and nonparametric statistical analysis used. Open-ended questions were mapped and correlations between COM-B and demographic profiles identified.

RESULTS

Responses (n = 140): Paediatric advance care planning was viewed positively; however, initiation practices were found to be influenced by wide ranging diagnoses and disease trajectories. Whilst some tools and protocols exist, they were not used in a systematic manner, and initiation behaviour was often not guided by them. Initiation was unstandardized, individually led, guided by intuition and experience and based on a range of prerequisites. Such behaviour, combined with inconsistencies in professional development, resulted in varying practice when managing clinical deterioration. Professionals who felt adequately trained initiated more conversations (capability). Those working in palliative care specialties, hospice settings and doctors initiated more discussions (opportunity). There was no difference in Motivation between professions, clinical settings or specialisms, although 25% (n = 35) of responses indicated discomfort discussing death and 34% (n = 49) worried about families' emotional reaction.

CONCLUSION

Although advocated, paediatric advance care planning is a complex process, commonly triggered by the physical deterioration and rarely underpinned by support tools. The COM-B framework was useful in identifying fundamental differences in initiation behaviour; however, further research is required to explore the complexity of initiation behaviour and the system within which the care is being delivered to identify influences on initiation.

Family involvement in advance care planning for people living with advanced cancer: A systematic mixed-methods review

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning is important for people with advanced cancer. Family involvement in advance care planning may be instrumental to achieving goal-concordant care since they frequently become surrogate decision-makers.

AIM

To examine components, contexts, effects and linkages with intended outcomes of involving family members in advance care planning.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods systematic review, in which quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and synthesised using thematic synthesis leading to a logic model. Prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020208143).

DATA SOURCES

Primary quantitative and qualitative research regarding family-involved advance care planning for people with advanced cancer were identified using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to September 2020. Quality appraisal was performed with 'QualSyst'.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles were included. The synthesis identified perceptions of individuals and family members concerning family involvement in advance care planning and presents components for family-integrated advance care planning intervention. The logic model includes (i) addressing family members' concerns and emotions and (ii) facilitating communication between individuals and family members which are distinctive when healthcare professionals engage with individuals as well as family members.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive understanding of family involvement in advance care planning and could inform its assessment and implementation in clinical practice. The number of included articles was limited. Therefore future research must focus on family integration and exploration of stakeholders' perceptions to identify additional components and linkages between them within family-integrated advance care planning.

Helping Patients Communicate With Oncologists When Cancer Treatment Resistance Occurs to Develop, Test, and Implement a Patient Communication Aid: Sequential Collaborative Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Most cancer-related deaths result from disseminated diseases that develop resistance to anticancer treatments. Inappropriate communication in this challenging situation may result in unmet patient information and support needs. Patient communication aids such as question prompt lists (QPLs) may help.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop and pilot-test a specific QPL in the following two contrasting clinical contexts in France after cancer resistance has developed: triple-negative and luminal B metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM).

METHODS

A sequential study design with a mixed methods collaborative approach will be applied. The first step aims to build a specific QPL. Step 1a will explore oncologist-patient communication issues from oncology professionals' interviews (n=20 approximately). Step 1b will appraise information and support needs experienced by patients with MBC or MUM both quantitatively (n=80) and qualitatively (n=40 approximately). These data will be used to develop and pilot-test a QPL specific to patients with cancer experiencing initial or acquired resistance to treatment. We expect to obtain a core QPL that comprises questions and concerns commonly expressed by patients with resistant cancer and is complemented by specific issues for either MBC or MUM cancer sites. In step 1c, 2 focus groups of patients with any type of metastatic cancer (n=4) and health care professionals (n=4) will be conducted to revise the content of a preliminary QPL and elaborate an acceptable and feasible clinical implementation. In step 1d, the content of the QPL version 1 and implementation guidance will be validated using a Delphi process. Step 2 will pilot-test the QPL version 1 in real practice with patients with MBC or MUM (n=80). Clinical utility will be assessed by comparing responses to questionnaires administered in step 1b (QPL-naive historical control group) and step 2 (QPL intervention group).

RESULTS

This study received grants in March and December 2019 and was approved by the French national ethics committee in July 2019. As of October 2021, interviews with oncology professionals have been conducted and analyzed (N=26 to reach saturation), and 39 and 27 patients with MBC and MUM, respectively, have been recruited.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically and culturally tailored QPL is expected to facilitate patients' participation in consultations, improve oncologists' responses to patients' information and support needs, and thus foster patients' psychological adjustment to the diagnosis and follow-up of cancer resistance to treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118062; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04118062.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26414.

Assessing the need for a question prompt list that encourages end-of-life discussions between patients with advanced cancer and their physicians: A focus group interview study

Objective

Early integration of palliative and cancer care improves the quality of life and is facilitated by discussions about the end of life after cessation of active cancer treatment between patients with advanced cancer and their physicians. However, both patients and physicians find end-of-life discussions challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the need for a question prompt list (QPL) that encourages end-of-life discussions between patients with advanced cancer and their physicians.

Methods

Focus group interviews (FGIs) were conducted with 18 participants comprising 5 pancreatic cancer patients, 3 family caregivers, 4 bereaved family members, and 6 physicians. Three themes were discussed: question items that should be included in the QPL that encourages end-of-life discussions with patients, family caregivers, and physicians after cessation of active cancer treatment; when the QPL should be provided; and who should provide the QPL. Each interview was audio-recorded, and content analysis was performed.

Results

The following 9 categories, with 57 question items, emerged from the FGIs: (1) preparing for the end of life, (2) treatment decision-making, (3) current and future quality of life, (4) current and future symptom management, (5) information on the transition to palliative care services, (6) coping with cancer, (7) caregivers’ role, (8) psychological care, and (9) continuity of cancer care. Participants felt that the physician in charge of the patient's care and other medical staff should provide the QPL early during active cancer treatment.

Significance of results

Data were collected to develop a QPL that encourages end-of-life discussions between patients with advanced cancer and their physicians.

Facing epistemic and complex uncertainty in serious illness: The role of mindfulness and shared mind

BACKGROUND

Epistemic uncertainty refers to situations in which available evidence is insufficient or unreliable, often accompanied by complexity due to novel contexts, multifactorial causation, and emerging options (the "unknowable unknown"). It stands in contrast to aleatory uncertainty where probabilities are known, and potential benefits and harms can be calculated and presented graphically (the "knowable unknown").

DISCUSSION

Epistemic uncertainty is common, and encompasses uncertainty about the nature of the illness, whom to entrust with one's care, and one's ability to adapt and cope. Communication about the "unknowable unknown" occurs infrequently and ineffectively, and there is little research on improving communication in the face of epistemic and complex uncertainty. Terror Management Theory (TMT) predicts that in encountering serious illness, people engage in "worldview defense" - suppressing death-related thoughts, affiliating with like-minded others, and developing cognitive rigidity and intolerance of information that challenges their worldview. Mindfulness is associated with diminished defensive worldview reactions and cognitive rigidity, and greater tolerance of ambiguity. Shared mind encompasses shared understanding and affective attunement.

CONCLUSION

For clinicians and seriously ill patients facing epistemic uncertainty, psychologically-informed interventions that promote mindfulness and shared mind offer promise in promoting open discussions regarding prognostic uncertainty, advance care planning, and treatment decision-making.

DISCO App: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a patient intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer in a diverse patient population

Background

Financial toxicity, the material and psychological burden of the cost of treatment, affects 30–50% of people with cancer, even those with health insurance. The burden of treatment cost can affect treatment adherence and, ultimately, mortality. Financial toxicity is a health equity issue, disproportionately affecting patients who are racial/ethnic minorities, have lower incomes, and are < 65 years old. Patient education about treatment cost and patient-oncologist cost discussions are recommended as ways to address financial toxicity; however, research shows cost discussions occur infrequently (Altice et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 109:djw205, 2017; Schnipper et al. J Clin Oncol 34:2925-34, 2016; Zafar et al. Oncologist 18:381-90, 2013; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 2010). Our overall goal is to address the burden of financial toxicity and work toward health equity through a tailorable education and communication intervention, the DISCO App. The aim of this longitudinal randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness of the DISCO App on the outcomes in a population of economically and racially/ethnically diverse cancer patients from all age groups.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer at a NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in Detroit, MI, will be randomized to one of three study arms: one usual care arm (arm 1) and two intervention arms (arms 2 and 3). All intervention patients (arms 2 and 3) will receive the DISCO App before the second interaction with their oncologist, and patients in arm 3 will receive an intervention booster. The DISCO App, presented on an iPad, includes an educational video about treatment costs, ways to manage them, and the importance of discussing them with oncologists. Patients enter socio-demographic information (e.g., employment, insurance status) and indicate their financial concerns. They then receive a tailored list of questions to consider asking their oncologist. All patients will have up to two interactions with their oncologist video recorded and complete measures at baseline, after the recorded interactions and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the second interaction. Outcome measures will assess discussions of cost, communication quality, knowledge of treatment costs, self-efficacy for treatment cost management, referrals for support, short- and longer-term financial toxicity, and treatment adherence.

Discussion

If effective, this intervention will improve awareness of and discussions of treatment cost and alleviate the burden of financial toxicity. It may be especially helpful to groups disproportionately affected by financial toxicity, helping to achieve health equity.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04766190. Registered on February 23, 2021

Advanced care planning: The concept over time

BACKGROUND

The process of advanced care planning (ACP) assists patients to clarify goals for the end of life.

DESIGN

The concept analysis used the Walker and Avant approach to analyze the concept of ACP.

DATA SOURCES

Dictionary definitions, historical documents, position statements and database searches were performed in PubMed to yield 187 articles which were reviewed for use of the concept. Additional sources were reviewed for relevance of the concept over time.

RESULTS

The historical progression of the concept of ACP in the literature has progressed from a legal concept to a prominent concept in the medical literature.

CONCLUSION

This analysis aims to improve clarity of the concept of ACP. The article offers provides details of necessary components of these important discussions to improve nurse's awareness of the ACP process. Conceptual understanding will help nurses be better equipped to disseminate information regarding ACP with patients and families.

Applied techniques for putting pre-visit planning in clinical practice to empower patient-centered care in the pandemic era: a systematic review and framework suggestion

Background

One of the main elements of patient-centered care is an enhancement of patient preparedness. Thus, pre-visit planning assessment tools was emerged to prepare and involve patients in their treatment process.

Objective

The main objective of this article was to review the applied tools and techniques for consideration of putting pre-visit planning into practice.

Methods

Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE, and PubMed databases were searched using keywords from January 2001 to November 2020. The review was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Then, qualitative analysis was done to suggest an appropriate framework by mapping the main concepts.

Results

Out of 385 citations were retrieved in initial database searches, 49 studies from ten countries were included. Applied pre-visit techniques can be classified into eight categories. Our results showed that almost 81% of studies were related to procedures that were done between each visit, while 42% of articles were related to before visits. Accordingly, the main approach of included articles was patient preparedness. While 38 studies reported this approach is effective, three studies reported the effectiveness of such tools as moderate, only two articles believed it had a low effect on improving patient-centered care.

Conclusion

This survey summarized the characteristics of published studies on pre-visit planning in the proposed framework. This approach could enhance the quality of patient care alongside enhancement patient-provider communication. However, such an approach can also be helpful to control pandemic diseases by reducing unnecessary referrals.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06456-7.

Impact of self-decision to stop cancer treatment on advanced genitourinary cancer patients

Decision-making to stop cancer treatment in patients with advanced cancer is stressful, and it significantly influences subsequent end-of-life palliative treatment. However, little is known about the extent to which the patient's self-decisions influenced the prognostic period. This study focused on the patient's self-decision and investigated the impact of the self-decision to stop cancer treatment on their post-cancer treatment survival period and place of death.We retrospectively analyzed 167 cases of advanced genitourinary cancer patients (kidney cancer: 42; bladder cancer: 68; prostate cancer: 57) treated at the University of Fukui Hospital (UFH), who later died because of cancer. Of these, 100 patients decided to stop cancer treatment by themselves (self-decision group), while the families of the remaining 67 patients (family's decision group) decided to stop treatment on their behalf because the patient's decision-making ability was already impaired. Differences in the post-cancer-treatment survival period and place of death between the 2 groups were examined. The association between place of death and survival period was also analyzed.The median survival period after terminating cancer treatment was approximately 6 times longer in the self-decision group (145.5 days in self-decision group vs 23.0 days in family's decision group, P < .001). Proportions for places of death were as follows: among the self-decision group, 42.0% of patients died at UFH, 45.0% at other medical institutions, and 13.0% at home; among the family's decision group, 62.7% died at UFH, 32.8% at other medical institutions, and 4.5% at home. The proportion of patients who died at UFH was significantly higher among the family's decision group (P = .011). The median survival period was significantly shorter for patients who died at UFH (UFH: 30.0 days; other institutions/home: 161.0 days; P < .001).Significantly longer post-cancer-treatment survival period and higher home death rate were observed among patients whose cancer treatment was terminated based on their self-decision. Our results provide clinical evidence, especially in terms of prognostic period and place of death that support the importance of discussing bad news, such as stopping cancer treatment with patients.

The Question-prompt list (QPL): Why it is needed in the Indian oncology setting?

BACKGROUND

In India, caregivers are an integral part of the illness experience, especially in cancer, to the extent that they can become proxy decision-makers for the patient. Further, owing to acute resource constraints in the Indian healthcare system, it may be difficult for oncologists to assess and elicit questions from each patient/caregiver. Consequently, there is a need to address these unique aspects of oncology care in India to improve patient outcomes and understanding of their illness and treatment. This can be achieved through a Question Prompt List (QPL), a checklist used by care recipients during medical consultations.

RECENT FINDINGS

This narrative review will first introduce research on the development and effectiveness of the QPL, and then it will highlight current gaps in oncology care in India and explore how the QPL may aid in closing these gaps. A literature search of the empirical research focused on the development, feasibility and acceptability of the QPL in oncology settings was conducted. The final review included 40 articles pertaining to QPL research. Additionally, psycho-oncology research in India centered on information needs and experiences was reviewed. Current Indian psycho-oncology research reports patients' want to be actively involved in their cancer care and a need for more illness information. However, a high demand on physicians' resources and the family caregivers' interference can be barriers to meeting patients' information/communication needs. International research demonstrates that a QPL helps structure and decrease consultation time, improves patient satisfaction with care, and improves the quality of communication during medical encounters.

CONCLUSION

QPLs for Indian patients and caregivers may focus on the scope of medical consultations to address patient needs while influencing the course and content of the patient-caregiver-physician interactions. Further, it can address the resource constraints in Indian oncology care settings, thus reducing the physician's burden.

Factors associated with health professionals decision to initiate paediatric advance care planning: A systematic integrative review

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning for children with palliative care needs is an emotionally, legally and complex aspect of care, advocated as beneficial to children, families and health professionals. Evidence suggests healthcare professionals often avoid or delay initiation. An overview of evidence on the factors that influence and impact on the health care professional's initiation of paediatric advance care planning process is lacking.

AIM

To review and synthesise evidence on the factors associated with health care professional's decision to initiate paediatric advance care planning.

DESIGN

Systematic integrative review using constant comparison method.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane) using MeSH terms and word searches in Oct 2019. No limit set on year of publication or country. Grey literature searches were also completed.

RESULTS

The search yielded 4153 citations from which 90 full text articles were reviewed. Twenty-one met inclusion criteria consisting of quantitative (n = 8), qualitative (n = 6) and theoretical (n = 7) studies.Findings revealed overarching and interrelated themes 'The timing of initiation', 'What makes an initiator, 'Professionals' perceptions' and 'Prerequisites to initiation'.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides insights into the complexities and factors surrounding the initiation of advance care planning in paediatric practice. Uncertainty regarding prognosis, responsibility and unpredictable parental reactions result in inconsistent practice. Future research is required to inform intervention to assist health care professionals when initiating paediatric advance care planning conversations.

A Question Prompt List for Advanced Cancer Patients Promoting Advance Care Planning: A French Randomized Trial

CONTEXT

Advance care planning is essential to enable informed medical decisions to be made and to reduce aggressiveness in end-of-life (EOL) care.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore whether a question prompt list (QPL) adapted to French language and culture could promote discussions, particularly on prognosis and EOL issues, among advanced cancer patients attending outpatient palliative care (PC) consultations.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized study, patients assigned to the intervention arm received a QPL to help them prepare for the next consultation one month later. The main inclusion criteria were advanced cancer patients referred to the PC team with an estimated life expectancy of less than one year. The primary endpoint was the number of questions raised, globally and by topic. The secondary objectives were the impact of the QPL on psychological symptoms, quality of life, satisfaction with care, and coping styles at two months.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 71) in the QPL arm asked more questions (mean 21.8 vs. 18.2, P = 0.03) than patients in the control arm (n = 71), particularly on PC (5.6 vs. 3.7, P = 0.012) and EOL issues (2.2 vs. 1, P = 0.018) but not on prognosis (4.3 vs. 3.6, not specified). At two months, there was no change in anxiety, depression, or quality of life in either arm; patient satisfaction with doctors' technical skills was scored higher (P = 0.024), and avoidance coping responses were less frequent (self-distraction, P = 0.015; behavioral disengagement, P = 0.025) in the QPL arm.

CONCLUSION

Questions on PC and EOL issues in outpatient PC consultations were more frequent, and patient satisfaction was better when a QPL was made available before the consultation.

Development and validation of the Therapy Preference Scale to understand patients´ systemic cancer treatment preferences

We incorporated questions related to safety, effectiveness and other characteristics of systemic cancer treatment into a self-report questionnaire - the Therapy Preference Scale - that captures patients´ preferences. The authors asked 20 experts to assess content validity and an additional 20 experts, patients and community members to examine face validity and guide revisions. Key revisions included shortening the length, clarifying constructs and providing details to explain the context and trade-offs necessary to balance the risks and benefits of cancer treatment. The content validity index for the final questionnaire was 1.0, indicating that all questions were relevant. Reviewers expressed that the questionnaire would serve an important purpose. Experts, patients and community members guided revisions of the questionnaire and documented its value.

Development and Evaluation of a Digital Intervention for Fulfilling the Needs of Older Migrant Patients With Cancer: User-Centered Design Approach

Background

Older migrant patients with cancer face many language- and culture-related barriers to patient participation during medical consultations. To bridge these barriers, an eHealth tool called Health Communicator was developed in the Netherlands. Essentially used as a digital translator that can collect medical history information from patients, the Health Communicator did not include an oncological module so far, despite the fact that the prevalence of Dutch migrant patients with cancer is rising.

Objective

This study aims to systematically develop, implement, and conduct a pilot evaluation of an oncological module that can be integrated into the Health Communicator to stimulate patient participation among older Turkish-Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch patients with cancer.

Methods

The Spiral Technology Action Research model, which incorporates 5 cycles that engage key stakeholders in intervention development, was used as a framework. The listen phase consisted of a needs assessment. The plan phase consisted of developing the content of the oncological module, namely the question prompt lists (QPLs) and scripts for patient education videos. On the basis of pretests in the do phase, 6 audiovisual QPLs on patient rights, treatment, psychosocial support, lifestyle and access to health care services, patient preferences, and clinical trials were created. Additionally, 5 patient education videos were created about patient rights, psychosocial support, clinical trials, and patient-professional communication. In the study phase, the oncological module was pilot-tested among 27 older Turkish-Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch patients with cancer during their consultations. In the act phase, the oncological model was disseminated to practice.

Results

The patient rights QPL was chosen most often during the pilot testing in the study phase. Patients and health care professionals perceived the QPLs as easy to understand and useful. There was a negative correlation between the tool’s ease of use and patient age. Patients reported that using the module impacted the consultations positively and thought they were more active compared with previous consultations. Health care professionals also found patients to be more active than usual. Health care professionals asked significantly more questions than patients during consultations. Patients requested to see the patients’ rights video most often. Patients rated the videos as easy to understand, useful, and informative. Most of the patients wanted to use the tool in the future.

Conclusions

Older migrant patients with cancer, survivors, and health care professionals found the oncological module to be a useful tool and have shown intentions to incorporate it into future consultation sessions. Both QPLs and videos were evaluated positively, the latter indicating that the use of narratives to inform older, low-literate migrant patients with cancer about health-related topics in their mother tongue is a viable approach to increase the effectiveness of health care communication with this target group.

Does being accompanied make a difference in communication during breast cancer consultations? Results from a multi-centered randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This study is based on a multi-centered RCT conducted on breast cancer patients during their first consultation with an oncologist. The main aim was to evaluate whether the introduction of a communication tool (i.e., the Question Prompt Sheet or Question Listing), with or without a companion, impacted the number of questions asked by patients during the consultation, and subsequent psychological and relational outcomes.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 324 breast cancer patients who were randomly placed into one of the two intervention groups: Question Prompt Sheet or Question Listing. Before and after the consultation, patients completed a set of standardized instruments: Satisfaction with decisions made during the consultation (SWD), Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDMQ-9), Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI), Patient Health Questionnaire Depression scale (PHQ-9), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12).

RESULTS

The results indicate that the number of questions asked during the consultation was higher when a Question Listing was provided and when the patient was unaccompanied. Unaccompanied patients asked more questions in both groups and had significantly lower scores than accompanied on the GHQ-12 and on the PHQ-9, indicating lower clinical symptomatology.

CONCLUSIONS

Results are in contrast with previous literature, indicating that being unaccompanied help patients to interact more with the oncologist. Further studies are needed to evaluate how the presence or not of a companion really impacts breast cancer patients during their first consultation with an oncologist.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01510964.

Improving Diabetes Management in Emerging Adulthood: An Intervention Development Study Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy

Background

Poor diabetes self-management in emerging adulthood (age 18-25 years) is associated with poorer diabetes health and diabetes complications. Emerging adults’ focus on individuation and independence underlies their poor diabetes outcomes, offering a lever for behavior change. Self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that interventions leveraging emerging adults’ innate developmental need for autonomy may offer a route to improving diabetes outcomes by increasing feelings of responsibility for and control over diabetes self-management activities.

Objective

This research project will use the multiphase optimization strategy to test the efficacy of three autonomy-supportive intervention components to elicit a clinically significant improvement in metabolic control, assessed by a 0.5% improvement in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), among older adolescents and emerging adults (16-25 years) with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes (T1D; HbA_1c≥9.0%).

Methods

A question prompt list (QPL) is a tool to empower patients to assume a more active role during medical visits by asking questions and stating concerns. The motivation enhancement system (MES) is a brief counseling intervention that uses motivational interviewing communication strategies to build intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy for self-management. Text message reminders to complete diabetes care tasks may increase self-efficacy for diabetes self-management. After refining these intervention components for emerging adults, we will conduct a component selection experiment using an eight-arm full factorial design: 2 (QPL yes or no)×2 (MES yes or no)×2 (Text yes or no). Participants will complete 3 study visits: baseline, treatment end at 2 months, and a follow-up at 6 months. The primary outcome is metabolic control, which will be measured via HbA_1c. Secondary outcomes include diabetes management and diabetes clinic attendance. SDT constructs of intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and the quality of the patient-provider relationship (ie, relatedness) are hypothesized mediators. Depression symptoms and emerging adults’ gender are hypothesized moderators. We will use the mixed-effects linear model for the analysis of variance of a factorial design to analyze continuous longitudinal experimental data; the generalized linear model will be used with categorical outcomes (eg, treatment attendance). The experiment was powered to detect the main effects of the intervention on the primary outcome.

Results

A total of 20 participants have enrolled and completed a qualitative interview after reviewing one or more intervention components. Analysis of interview data are underway, with a report of these results anticipated in the fall of 2020. The clinical trial will be launched in the fall 2020, with participants enrolled through May 2023 and data collection continuing through November 2023.

Conclusions

At the end of this experiment, we will have empirical evidence to support a large-scale, multisite effectiveness trial of an intervention package that has been optimized for older adolescents and emerging adults with poorly controlled T1D.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04066959; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04066959

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/20191

The silent transition from curative to palliative treatment: a qualitative study about cancer patients' perceptions of end-of-life discussions with oncologists

Objective

The aims of the study were to examine patients’ experiences of end-of-life (EOL) discussions and to shed light on patients’ perceptions of the transition from curative to palliative care.

Methods

This study was based on a qualitative methodology; we conducted semi-structured interviews with advanced cancer patients admitted to the palliative care unit (PCU) of the Medical University of Vienna. Interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed based on thematic analysis, using the MAXQDA software.

Results

Twelve interviews were conducted with patients living with terminal cancer who were no longer under curative treatment. The findings revealed three themes: (1) that the medical EOL conversation contributed to the transition process from curative to palliative care, (2) that patients’ information preferences were ambivalent and modulated by defense mechanisms, and (3) that the realization and integration of medical EOL conversations into the individual’s personal frame of reference is a process that needs effort and information from different sources coming together.

Conclusions

The results of the present study offer insight into how patients experienced their transition from curative to palliative care and into how EOL discussions are only one element within the disease trajectory. Many patients struggle with their situations. Therefore, more emphasis should be put on repeated offers to have EOL conversations and on early integration of aspects of palliative care into the overall treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05750-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Communicating Oncologic Prognosis With Empathy: A Pilot Study of a Novel Communication Guide

Background:

Clear communication between patients, families, and health-care providers is imperative to maximize patient outcomes, particularly for patients diagnosed with incurable cancer who require prompt engagement in decision-making. In response to the need to engage in quality patient-centered communication, an interprofessional team, representing medicine, nursing, social work, spiritual care, and clinical psychology, explored extant literature and developed a simple, single-page communication guide that summarizes the prognosis for patients with incurable cancers. The tool was specifically designed to enhance communication for patients, families, and across all members of the treatment and patient support team.

Purpose:

The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the impact of the communication guide on patient’s accurate understanding of prognosis and the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

Methods:

The study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-method design. Using pre- and post-tests, participants completed a prognosis and treatment perception survey and were randomized into control or intervention groups based on preference for prognostic information. The oncologist utilized the communication guide with the participants in the intervention group. Finally, 6-week post-test surveys were completed, followed by an exit interview.

Results:

Key findings revealed participants prefer receiving detailed information about prognosis and have differing perceptions compared to the oncologists. Understandings of prognosis for patients and oncologists became more congruent following use of the communication guide. Participants found the tool useful and helpful.

Conclusions:

The communication tool serves as a promising mechanism to enhance patient-centered communication about prognosis for patients with incurable cancer.

Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Advance care planning (ACP) has shown benefit in some, but not all, studies. It is important to understand the utility of ACP. We conducted a scoping review to identify promising interventions and outcomes.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

MEASUREMENTS

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for ACP randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2010, to March 3, 2020. We used standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses methods to chart study characteristics, including a standardized ACP Outcome Framework: Process (e.g., readiness), Action (e.g., communication), Quality of Care (e.g., satisfaction), Health Status (e.g., anxiety), and Healthcare Utilization. Differences between arms of P < .05 were deemed positive.

RESULTS

Of 1,464 articles, 69 met eligibility; 94% were rated high quality. There were variable definitions, age criteria (≥18 to ≥80 years), diseases (e.g., dementia and cancer), and settings (e.g., outpatient and inpatient). Interventions included facilitated discussions (42%), video only (20%), interactive, multimedia (17%), written only (12%), and clinician training (9%). For written only, 75% of primary outcomes were positive, as were 69% for multimedia programs; 67% for facilitated discussions, 59% for video only, and 57% for clinician training. Overall, 72% of Process and 86% of Action outcomes were positive. For Quality of Care, 88% of outcomes were positive for patient-surrogate/clinician congruence, 100% for patients/surrogate/clinician satisfaction with communication, and 75% for surrogate satisfaction with patients' care, but not for goal concordance. For Health Status outcomes, 100% were positive for reducing surrogate/clinician distress, but not for patient quality of life. Healthcare Utilization data were mixed.

CONCLUSION

ACP is complex, and trial characteristics were heterogeneous. Outcomes for all ACP interventions were predominantly positive, as were Process and Action outcomes. Although some Quality of Care and Health Status outcomes were mixed, increased patient/surrogate satisfaction with communication and care and decreased surrogate/clinician distress were positive. Further research is needed to appropriately tailor interventions and outcomes for local contexts, set appropriate expectations of ACP outcomes, and standardize across studies.

The Impact of Organizational Factors on Nurses' Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors Around Advance Care Planning

The objective of this study was to understand the organizational context of nurses' use of advance care plans (ACPs). We use a modified version of Bandera's social cognitive theory model to understand relationships between organizational constructs such as experience with ACPs and satisfaction with organizational support and oncology nurses' knowledge, behaviors, and perceptions around ACPs. The sample included practicing registered nurses with a major focus in oncology who were members of the Oncology Nursing Society in the United States, and nurses at medical hospital or community care settings were included. Institutional review board approval was obtained, and permission was granted from the oncology nursing organization for online surveys. A validated ACP survey was used to measure nurses' experiences and perceptions of working with ACP. Perceptions of ACP by patients, vicarious experience with ACP, direct experience of ACP, having received training, and perceptions of organizational support for ACP were all predictive of total ACP behaviors in the workplace. The final regression model had 3 independent variables and accounted for 33% of the variance in total ACP behaviors. Both vicarious and direct experience with ACP was associated with ACP behaviors in workplaces. This implies the need for more vicarious and direct training experiences, as well as organization support, to build self-efficacy to perform ACP.

Effects of a Communication Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial to Enable Goals-of-Care Discussions

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced cancer often have a poor understanding of cancer incurability, which correlates with more aggressive treatment near the end of life (EOL). We sought to determine whether training oncologists to elicit patient values for goals-of-care (GoC) discussions will increase and improve these discussions. We explored its impact on use of aggressive care at EOL.

METHODS

We enrolled and used block randomization to assign 92% of solid tumor oncologists to 2-hour communication skills training and four coaching sessions. We surveyed 265 patient with newly diagnosed advanced cancer with < 2-year life expectancy at baseline and 6 months. We assessed prevalence and quality of GoC communication, change in communication skills, and use of aggressive care in the last month of life.

RESULTS

Intervention (INT) oncologists' (n = 11) skill to elicit patient values increased (27%-55%), while usual care (UC) oncologists' (n = 11) skill did not (9%-0%; P = .01). Forty-eight percent (n = 74) INT v 51% (n = 56) UC patients reported a GoC discussion (P = .61). There was no difference in the prevalence or quality of GoC communication between groups (global odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.23). Within 6 months, there was no difference in deaths (18 INT v 16 UC; P = .51), mean hospitalizations (0.47 INT v 0.42 UC; P = .63), intensive care unit admissions (5% INT v 9% UC; P = .65), or chemotherapy (26% INT v 16% UC; P = .39).

CONCLUSION

Use of a coaching model focused on teaching oncologists to elicit patient values improved that skill but did not increase prevalence or quality of GoC discussions among patients with advanced cancer. There was no impact on high care utilization at EOL.

Perceptions of prognosis and goal of treatment in patients with malignant gliomas and their caregivers

Background

Patients with malignant gliomas have a poor prognosis. However, little is known about patients' and caregivers' understanding of the prognosis and the primary treatment goal.

Methods

We conducted a prospective study in patients with newly diagnosed malignant gliomas (N = 72) and their caregivers (N = 55). At 12 weeks after diagnosis, we administered the Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire to assess understanding of prognosis and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to evaluate mood. We used multivariable regression analyses to explore associations between prognostic understanding and mood and McNemar tests to compare prognostic perceptions among patient-caregiver dyads (N = 48).

Results

A total of 87.1% (61/70) of patients and 79.6% (43/54) of caregivers reported that it was "very" or "extremely" important to know about the patient's prognosis. The majority of patients (72.7%, [48/66]) reported that their cancer was curable. Patients who reported that their illness was incurable had greater depressive symptoms (B = 3.01, 95% CI, 0.89-5.14, P = .01). There was no association between caregivers' prognostic understanding and mood. Among patient-caregiver dyads, patients were more likely than caregivers to report that their primary treatment goal was cure (43.8% [21/48] vs 25.0% [12/48], P = .04) and that the oncologist's primary goal was cure (29.2% [14/48] vs 8.3% [4/48], P = .02).

Conclusions

Patients with malignant gliomas frequently hold inaccurate perceptions of the prognosis and treatment goal. Although caregivers more often report an accurate assessment of these metrics, many still report an overly optimistic perception of prognosis. Interventions are needed to enhance prognostic communication and to help patients cope with the associated distress.

Prognostic Awareness in Adult Oncology and Palliative Care

Communicating prognosis clearly and empathically can foster accurate prognostic awareness in patients with advanced cancer and their family members. Whereas patients and doctors desire clear prognostic communication, it presents many challenges in oncologic and palliative care settings. Patients with advanced cancer often have poor prognostic awareness as a result of deficiencies in doctor communication and understandable-and potentially adaptive-attempts by patients and families to reduce the threat of death and maintain hope. Interventions to promote prognostic discussion have largely succeeded in increasing the frequency, but not necessarily the quality, of such discussions, yet have failed to improve prognostic awareness. Because clear communication of prognosis is an ethical mandate, more research is needed to provide an evidence base for teaching and practice in this area.

Pilot Trial of a Combined Oncologist-Patient-Caregiver Communication Intervention in Singapore

PURPOSE

High-quality end-of-life cancer care requires oncologists to communicate effectively and patients/caregivers to be participatory. However, most communication interventions target either but not both. We aimed to pilot a potentially disseminable combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention to improve oncologist empathic responses, discussions of prognosis and goals of care, and patient/caregiver participation. We assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy.

METHODS

Between June 2018 and January 2019, we conducted a pilot 2-arm cluster trial in Singapore, randomly assigning 10 oncologists in a 1:1 ratio to receive the combined intervention or usual care. Intervention arm oncologists received online communication skills training, and their patients received a brief prompt sheet before consultations. We audio recorded consultations with 60 patients with stage IV solid malignancy and analyzed 30 in the postintervention phase. The study was not powered for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Participation rates for oncologists and patients were 100% and 63%, respectively. All oncologists completed the online training within an average of 4.5 weeks; 73% of the patients selected at least 1 question in the prompt sheet. Compared with the control arm, intervention arm oncologists had more empathic responses in total (relative risk [RR], 1.66) and for every patient/caregiver negative emotion (RR, 2.01). Their consultations were more likely to involve discussions of prognosis (RR, 3.00) and goals of care, and their patients were more likely to ask a prognosis-related question (RR, 2.00; P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSION

The combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention is feasible and acceptable and has the potential to improve communication within consultations.

The clinical practice guideline palliative care for children and other strategies to enhance shared decision-making in pediatric palliative care; pediatricians' critical reflections

BACKGROUND

Because of practice variation and new developments in palliative pediatric care, the Dutch Association of Pediatrics decided to develop the clinical practice guideline (CPG) palliative care for children. With this guideline, the association also wanted to precipitate an attitude shift towards shared decision-making (SDM) and therefore integrated SDM in the CPG Palliative care for children. The aim was to gain insight if integrating SDM in CPGs can potentially encourage pediatricians to practice SDM. Its objectives were to explore pediatricians' attitudes and thoughts regarding (1) recommendations on SDM in CPGs in general and the guideline Palliative care for children specifically; (2) other SDM enhancing strategies or tools linked to CPGs.

METHODS

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Pediatricians (15) were recruited through purposive sampling in three university-based pediatric centers in the Netherlands. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, coded by at least two authors and analyzed with NVivo.

RESULTS

Some pediatricians considered SDM a skill or attitude that cannot be addressed by clinical practice guidelines. According to others, however, clinical practice guidelines could enhance SDM. In case of the guideline Palliative care for children, the recommendations needed to focus more on how to practice SDM, and offer more detailed recommendations, preferring a recommendation stating multiple options. Most interviewed pediatricians felt that patient decisions aids were beneficial to patients, and could ensure that all topics relevant to the patient are covered, even topics the pediatrician might not consider him or herself, or deems less important. Regardless of the perceived benefit, some pediatricians preferred providing the information themselves instead of using a patient decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

For clinical practice guidelines to potentially enhance SDM, guideline developers should avoid blanket recommendations in the case of preference sensitive choices, and SDM should not be limited to recommendations on non-treatment decisions. Furthermore, preference sensitive recommendations are preferably linked with patient decision aids.

Do published patient decision aids for end-of-life care address patients' decision-making needs? A systematic review and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND

Many decisions are made by patients in their last months of life, creating complex decision-making needs for these individuals. Identifying whether currently existing patient decision aids address the full range of these patient decision-making needs will better inform end-of-life decision support in clinical practice.

AIMS AND DESIGN

This systematic review aimed to (a) identify the range of patients' decision-making needs and (b) assess the extent to which patient decision aids address these needs.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL electronic literature databases were searched (January 1990-January 2017), supplemented by hand-searching strategies. Eligible literature reported patient decision-making needs throughout end-of-life decision-making or were evaluations of patient decision aids. Identified decision aid content was mapped onto and assessed against all patient decision-making needs that were deemed 'addressable'.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies described patient needs, and seven end-of-life patient decision aids were identified. Patient needs were categorised, resulting in 48 'addressable' needs. Mapping needs to patient decision aid content showed that 17 patient needs were insufficiently addressed by current patient decision aids. The most substantial gaps included inconsistent acknowledgement, elicitation and documentation of how patient needs varied individually for the level of information provided, the extent patients wanted to participate in decision-making, and the extent they wanted their families and associated healthcare professionals to participate.

CONCLUSION

Patient decision-making needs are broad and varied. Currently developed patient decision aids are insufficiently addressing patient decision-making needs. Improving future end-of-life patient decision aid content through five key suggestions could improve patient-focused decision-making support at the end of life.

Feasibility and perception of a question prompt list in outpatient cancer care

Introduction

Management of cancer is often characterized by difficult decisions. The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS) has developed the “Know Yourself” tool, a question prompt list (QPL) to enable patients to participate in these decisions.

Methods

We investigated the feasibility of using the NCCS tool by oncologists and their patients with cancer in a before-and-after pilot study at a tertiary medical center. We also measured patient reported decision preparedness, anxiety, satisfaction with care, trust in physician, discussion of care with their primary care physician (PCP), and general state of health, and solicited feedback from clinicians and patients on use of the form.

Results

Ninety patients and fifteen clinicians participated. Most patients reported the Tool was easy to use (91%) and would recommend it to others (73%) however fewer reported discussing the Tool at the visit (31%) or felt that it improved the quality of care (45%) or communication with the oncologist (56%). Clinicians reported Tool use in only 16 of 60 visits (27%); in these visits the Tool was helpful in identifying areas of concern (74%), guiding the clinical interaction (67%), promoting communication (62%), identifying areas of need (70%), and improving quality of care (71%). Decision preparedness, trust in physicians, uncertainty about care, anxiety, patient satisfaction and discussion of care with the PCP was unchanged with Tool use compared to non-use.

Conclusions

The Know Yourself tool had poor uptake but was favorably received among both patients and clinicians who used it. These findings suggest some patients could benefit from QPLs. Future work should test how implementation strategies might achieve greater use.

Cancer patients' needs for support in expressing instrumental concerns and emotions

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our study was to provide an overview of intervention guidelines on how to address patients' practical needs for support in expressing instrumental concerns and emotions regarding medical, psychosocial and practical topics.

METHODS

Six focus groups of cancer patients and survivors (N = 39) were organised. An interview guide was created that consisted of three topics: (a) concerns, (b) needs for support, and (c) a Concern Prompt List. Using the framework method, the transcripts were coded and analysed in Atlas T.I.

RESULTS

Patients prefer to receive practical and emotional support, help with preparation, prompts/cues, instructions on how to perform the behaviour (i.e., express their concerns or emotions), feedback, a different structure for the consultation and tailoring. Most of these techniques should preferably be delivered via interpersonal communication. Needs sometimes differ for instrumental concerns and emotions. Only some needs for support were exclusively related to instrumental concerns or emotions. The typical needs for support were not solely linked to the medical, psychosocial and practical topics.

CONCLUSION

Different needs to express instrumental concerns and emotions throughout the disease trajectory are categorised. These needs provide input for developing interventions to support concern expression.

Sharing in care: engaging care partners in the care and communication of breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Family is often overlooked in cancer care. We developed a patient-family agenda setting intervention to engage family in cancer care communication.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (NCT03283553) of patients on active treatment for breast cancer and their family "care partner." Intervention dyads (n = 69) completed a self-administered checklist to clarify care partner roles, establish a shared visit agenda, and facilitate MyChart patient portal access. Control dyads (n = 63) received usual care. We assessed intervention acceptability and initial effects from post-visit surveys and MyChart utilization at 6 weeks.

RESULTS

At baseline, most patients (89.4%) but few care partners (1.5%) were registered for MyChart. Most patients (79.4%) wanted their care partner to have access to their records and 39.4% of care partners reported accessing MyChart. In completing the checklist, patients and care partners endorsed active communication roles for the care partner and identified a similar visit agenda: most (> 90%) reported the checklist was easy, useful, and recommended it to others. At 6 weeks, intervention (vs control) care partners were more likely to be registered for MyChart (75.4% vs 1.6%; p < 0.001), to have logged in (43.5% vs 0%; p < 0.001) and viewed clinical notes (30.4% vs 0%; p < 0.001), but were no more likely to exchange direct messages with clinicians (1.5% vs 0%; p = 0.175). No differences in patients' MyChart use were observed, but intervention patients more often viewed clinical notes (50.7% vs 9.5%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A patient-family agenda setting intervention was acceptable and affected online practices of cancer patients and care partners.

Advanced cancer patients' understanding of prognostic information: Applying insights from psychological research

PURPOSE

Informed medical decision-making at the end of life often requires engaging in highly emotional, potentially upsetting discussions about prognosis, while ensuring that patients grasp its personal meaning. Behavioral science offers insights into ways to promote prognostic understanding among patients with advanced cancer.

SUMMARY

In this literature review, we synthesize complementary findings from basic behavioral science and applied clinical research, which suggest that psychological factors can significantly influence both patients' clinical interactions and their prognostic understanding. For example, stress and emotion can affect cognition, which may shape how patients process complex medical information. Additionally, clinicians may be less likely to share prognostic information with distressed patients who, in turn, may be hesitant to ask about their prognosis for fear of the answer. Although traditional approaches for increasing advanced cancer patients' understanding focus on improving information delivery, these efforts may not be sufficient without corresponding interventions that assist patients in managing distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological barriers may limit opportunities for patients to fully understand their prognosis and to receive high quality of end-of-life care that is linked with an accurate understanding of their disease and treatment options. Failure to attend to patients' emotional distress may undermine efforts to improve medical communication. This underscores the importance of increased attention to the psychological factors that impede patients' comprehension of material shared in cancer clinic visits, in order to inform interventions that address patient distress both before and after receiving "bad news." Integrating findings from psychological research into prognostic discussions may not only improve advanced cancer patients' mental health, but may also promote their ability to make informed, value-consistent medical decisions.

Current treatment of HER 2+ metastatic breast cancer

Historically, HER2-positive breast cancer had a poor prognosis. The development of molecul ar ther apies that target the HER2 receptor has TR ansformed outcomes. Here, the evidence on Anti-HER2 therapies is summarised.