Prioritisation of treatment goals among older patients with non-curable cancer: the OPTion randomised controlled trial in Dutch primary care

Cross-sectional study assessing health outcome priorities of older adults with multimorbidity at a primary care setting in Singapore

OBJECTIVES

Managing older adults with multimorbidity may be challenging due to the conflicting benefits and harms of multiple treatments. Thus, it is important to identify patients' health outcome priorities to align treatment goals with their health preferences. This study aimed to use the Outcome Prioritisation Tool (OPT) to describe the health outcome priorities of older adults with multimorbidity and determine the factors associated with these priorities. Additionally, it aimed to assess the ease of completing the OPT in Singapore's primary care population.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study conducted from January to March 2022.

SETTING

A public primary care centre in Singapore.

PARTICIPANTS

65 years and older with multimorbidity.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was the most important health outcome priorities on the OPT. Secondary outcome measures were factors affecting these priorities and ease of completing the OPT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 180 participants (mean age: 73.2±6.1 years). Slightly more than half (54.4%) prioritised 'staying alive', while the remainder (45.6%) prioritised 'maintaining independence' (25.6%), 'relieving pain' (10.6%) and 'relieving other symptoms' (9.4%). Participants with six or more chronic conditions were three times (OR 3.03 (95% CI1.09 to 8.42)) more likely to prioritise 'staying alive' compared with participants with three conditions. Most participants (69.4%) agreed that the OPT was easy to complete, and the mean time taken to complete the OPT was 3.8±1.6 minutes.

CONCLUSION

'Staying alive' was the most important health outcome priority, especially for older adults with six or more chronic conditions. The OPT was easily completed among older adults with multimorbidity in primary care. Further qualitative studies can be conducted to understand the factors influencing patients' priorities and explore the relevance of the OPT in guiding treatment decisions.

Goal Setting and Health-Related Outcomes in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature From 2000 to 2020

Identifying and synthesizing recent empirical research on goal setting among adults with chronic disease is the focus of this article. The article has two phases: Phase 1, a thematic analysis with machine reading of the data and manual thematic analysis, and Phase 2, a quantitative meta-analysis. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies are included in Phase 1 (99 papers). Phase 2 includes only quantitative studies (75 papers). Five main themes are identified: (a) the effect of goal characteristics on health-related outcomes, (b) the effect of goal setting on health-related outcomes, (c) the effect of goal achievement on health-related outcomes, (d) goal alignment between patients and health care service providers, and (e) individual and collaborative goal setting of patients and health care service providers. The meta-analysis reveals considerable evidence of an association between goal setting and health-related outcomes.

Cancer-related Fatigue in Lung Cancer: A Research Agenda: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Fatigue is the most common symptom among cancer survivors. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) may occur at any point in the cancer care continuum. Multiple factors contribute to CRF development and severity, including cancer type, treatments, presence of other symptoms, comorbidities, and medication side effects. Clinically, increasing physical activity, enhancing sleep quality, and recognizing sleep disorders are integral to managing CRF. Unfortunately, CRF is infrequently recognized, evaluated, or treated in lung cancer survivors despite more frequent and severe symptoms than in other cancers. Therefore, increased awareness and understanding of CRF are needed to improve health-related quality of life in lung cancer survivors. Objectives: 1) To identify and prioritize knowledge and research gaps and 2) to develop and prioritize research questions to evaluate mechanistic, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches to CRF among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary panel to review the available literature on CRF, focusing on the impacts of physical activity, rehabilitation, and sleep disturbances in lung cancer. We used a three-round modified Delphi process to prioritize research questions. Results: This statement identifies knowledge gaps in the 1) detection and diagnostic evaluation of CRF in lung cancer survivors; 2) timing, goals, and implementation of physical activity and rehabilitation; and 3) evaluation and treatment of sleep disturbances and disorders to reduce CRF. Finally, we present the panel's initial 32 research questions and seven final prioritized questions. Conclusions: This statement offers a prioritized research agenda to 1) advance clinical and research efforts and 2) increase awareness of CRF in lung cancer survivors.

Kidney transplantation or dialysis in older adults-an interview study on the decision-making process

BACKGROUND

In older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the choice between kidney transplantation (KT) and dialysis may be more complex than in younger patients because of a higher prevalence of comorbidities and frailty. This study aims to provide greater insight into the current decision-making process by exploring the expectations, experiences and health outcome priorities of all stakeholders.

METHODS

We performed semi-structured interviews with patients ≥65 years with ESKD (eGFR <15 ml/min/1.73m2, KT recipient or treated with dialysis), patients' relatives and healthcare professionals (nephrologists, nurses and medical social workers). Interviews were conducted until data saturation and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

We performed 36 interviews (patients n = 18, relatives n = 5, healthcare professionals n = 13). Thematic analysis revealed five themes. Older patients' health outcome priorities were mostly related to quality of life (QOL). Individual older patients showed marked differences in the preferred level of engagement during the decision-making process (varying from 'wants to be in the lead' to 'follows the nephrologist') and in informational needs (varying from evidence-based to experience-based). On the contrary, healthcare professionals were quite unanimous on all aspects. They focused on determining eligibility for KT as start of the decision-making process, on clear and extensive information provision and on classical, medical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making process could benefit from early identification of older patients' values, needs and health outcome priorities, in parallel with assessment of KT eligibility and before discussing the treatment options, and the explicit use of this information in further steps of the decision-making process.

Healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

General practice plays an important role in cancer trajectories, and cancer patients request the continuous involvement of general practice. The objective of this scoping review was to identify healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS

A scoping review of the literature published in Danish or English from 2010 to 2020 was conducted. Data was collected using identified keywords and indexed terms in several databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest), contacting key experts, searching through reference lists, and reports from selected health political, research- and interest organizations' websites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We identified healthcare practices in cancer trajectories that increase quality care. Identified healthcare practices were grouped into four contextual domains and allocated to defined phases in the cancer trajectory. The results are presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

A total of 45 peer-reviewed and six non-peer-reviewed articles and reports were included. Quality of care increases in all phases of the cancer trajectory when GPs listen carefully to the full story and use action plans. After diagnosis, quality of care increases when GPs and practice staff have a proactive care approach, act as interpreters of diagnosis, treatment options, and its consequences, and engage in care coordination with specialists in secondary care involving the patient.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective. The results support general practice in investigating own healthcare practices and identifying possibilities for quality improvement.KEY POINTSIdentified healthcare practices in general practice that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories:Listen carefully to the full storyUse action plans and time-out-consultationsPlan and provide proactive careAct as an interpreter of diagnosis, treatment options, and its consequences for the patientCoordinate care with specialists, patients, and caregivers with mutual respectIdentified barriers for quality of care in cancer trajectories are:Time constraints in consultationsLimited accessibility for patients and caregiversHealth practices to increase the quality of care should be effective, safe, people-centered, timely, equitable, integrated, and efficient. These distinctions of quality of care, support general practice in investigating and improving quality of care in cancer trajectories.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient.

Abstract

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

'What matters to you?' Health outcome prioritisation in treatment decision-making for older patients

Background

for shared decision-making, it is important to discuss of the patients’ priorities in order to align treatment decisions with these priorities.

Objective

to assess the most important health outcome for older patients on the verge of making a treatment decision, using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT). Secondary objectives were the feasibility of the OPT and patient variables associated with prioritising different health outcomes.

Design

retrospective cohort study.

Setting and subjects

at the University Medical Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands, 350 patients were included who visited the geriatric outpatient clinic during the work-up regarding a complex treatment decision (such as cancer treatment or heart valve replacement).

Methods

during geriatric assessment, patients prioritised between four health outcomes, using the OPT.

Results

median age was 78.5 years, 172 (49.1%) were referred regarding a treatment decision for a malignant disease. Cognitive impairment was present in 23.6%. Most patients (55.2%) prioritised maintaining independence as their most important goal, followed by extending life in 21.1%. Only cognitive impairment was significantly associated with prioritising extending life as the most important health outcome. For 107 patients (30.6%), the OPT was not feasible; these patients more often had malnutrition and assisted living.

Conclusions

the main health outcome of older patients on the verge of making a treatment decision was maintaining independence, followed by extending life. Patients with cognitive impairment more often prioritised extending life. The OPT was feasible as a decision aid for most patients. For optimal shared decision-making, it is crucial to take patient preferences into account.

Treatment goals and changes over time in older patients with non-curable cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the treatment goals of older patients with non-curable cancer, whether those goals changed over time, and if so, what triggered those changes.

METHODS

We performed a descriptive and qualitative analysis using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) to assess patient goals across four conversations with general practitioners (GPs) over 6 months. Text entries from electronic patient records (hospital and general practice) were then analyzed qualitatively for this period.

RESULTS

Of the 29 included patients, 10 (34%) rated extending life and 9 (31%) rated maintaining independence as their most important goals. Patients in the last year before death (late phase) prioritized extending life less often (3 patients; 21%) than those in the early phase (7 patients; 47%). Goals changed for 16 patients during follow-up (12 in the late phase). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes that explained the baseline OPT scores (prioritizing a specific goal, rating a goal as unimportant, and treatment choices related to goals). Another three themes related to changes in OPT scores (symptoms, disease course, and life events) and stability of OPT scores (stable situation, disease-unrelated motivation, and stability despite symptoms).

CONCLUSION

Patients most often prioritized extending life as the most important goal. However, priorities differed in the late phase of the disease, leading to changed goals. Triggers for change related to both the disease (e.g., symptoms and course) and to other life events. We therefore recommend that goals should be discussed repeatedly, especially near the end of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OPTion study: NTR5419.