Family Caregiver Depressive Symptom and Grief Outcomes From the ENABLE III Randomized Controlled Trial

Palliative and End-of-Life Family Caregiving in Rural Areas: A Scoping Review of Social Determinants of Health and Emotional Well-Being

Introduction: Due to their remote location, rural-dwelling family caregivers (FCGs) experience geographic and psychosocial challenges when providing home-based palliative and end-of-life (PEOL) care for their care recipient. Limited research has evaluated the social and environmental factors that may compound FCG burden and contribute to adverse emotional health outcomes among rural-dwelling PEOL FCGs. Objective: To characterize the social determinants of health (SDOH) that affect the provision of PEOL care among rural-dwelling FCGs, along with symptoms of anxiety and depression. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's Framework. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane, and 511 articles published between 2010 and 2023 were screened. Keywords included "rural," "PEOL care," and "FCG." Inclusion criteria included FCGs, ages ≥18 years; findings reported on SDOH, anxiety, and/or depressive symptoms; within a rural context; and U.S. based. Findings: In this review, 18 studies met eligibility and were included. Apart from six studies that specifically investigated Black and Latinx FCGs, most FCGs were middle-aged White female spouses. SDOH impacting PEOL care provision included: limited access to PEOL services due to remote distance and travel needs for services; low health literacy in medical terminology and patient symptom management; limited English-language proficiency; perceived clinician racial and ethnic discrimination; financial vulnerabilities affecting health care coverage; and underdeveloped infrastructure. These barriers negatively impacted decision making, communication with clinicians, and patient symptom management. FCGs reported emotional distress related to patients' symptom management and limited opportunities for respite. There was a limited investigation of emotional well-being and minimal interventions aimed toward improving rural-dwelling FCG emotional health. The presence of community support promoted hospice use and facilitated the provision of care. Conclusions: FCGs are vulnerable to adverse emotional health when providing home-based PEOL care. Research is needed to develop supportive interventions (e.g., digital health) for rural-dwelling FCGs.

The CAREPAL-8: a short screening tool for multidimensional family caregiver burden in palliative care

BACKGROUND

Family caregivers of terminally ill and dying people do not only experience varying levels but also different dimensions of caregiver-related strain and burden. The aim of the study was to develop a short multidimensional screening tool for the detection of burden in family caregivers in palliative care.

METHODS

Family caregivers of cancer patients newly admitted to specialist inpatient palliative care (N = 232) completed questionnaires on psychological burden, quality of life, social support and need fulfillment. A latent class mixture model was used to identify discrete classes of family caregivers related to their multidimensional caregiver burden. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the most predictive items from a set of established questionnaires.

RESULTS

Four latent classes of family caregivers were identified: Currently stable caregivers (37%), Caregivers with unmet needs (20%), Psychologically burdened caregivers (30%), and High-risk caregivers (13%). Each of these classes describes a different risk profile of multidimensional family caregiver burden, although family caregivers exhibit high levels of distress across all classes. From a set of 48 items, we identified eight items that predicted the class membership best. These items represent the items of the novel multidimensional screening tool: The 8-item Screening Tool for Family Caregiver Burden in Palliative Care (CAREPAL-8). Except for social support, the items maintained fidelity to the conceptualization of multidimensional caregiver burden used in this study. A preliminary classification system was developed, which has yet to be validated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the first step in the establishment of a practical, self-administered screening tool that might help healthcare providers to tailor caregiver care according to their burden in daily practice. Brevity of the 8-item tool might facilitate its use in routine clinical care.

Interventions to improve outcomes for caregivers of patients with advanced cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer often have poor quality of life (QOL) and mental health. We examined the effectiveness of interventions offering support for caregivers of patients with advanced cancer on caregiver QOL and mental health outcomes.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases from inception through June 2021. Eligible studies reported on randomized controlled trials for adult caregivers of adult patients with advanced cancer. Meta-analysis was conducted for primary outcomes of QOL, physical well-being, mental well-being, anxiety, and depression, from baseline to follow-up of 1-3 months; secondary endpoints were these outcomes at 4-6 months and additional caregiver burden, self-efficacy, family functioning, and bereavement outcomes. Random effects models were used to generate summary standardized mean differences (SMD).

RESULTS

Of 12 193 references identified, 56 articles reporting on 49 trials involving 8554 caregivers were eligible for analysis; 16 (33%) targeted caregivers, 19 (39%) patient-caregiver dyads, and 14 (29%) patients and their families. At 1- to 3-month follow-up, interventions had a statistically significant effect on overall QOL (SMD = 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 0.39); I2 = 52.0%), mental well-being (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.25; I2 = 0.0%), anxiety (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.49; I2 = 74.0%), and depression (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.52; I2 = 64.4) compared with standard care. In narrative synthesis, interventions demonstrated improvements in caregiver self-efficacy and grief.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions targeting caregivers, dyads, or patients and families led to improvements in caregiver QOL and mental health. These data support the routine provision of interventions to improve well-being in caregivers of patients with advanced cancer.

Palliative Care Interventions Effects on Psychological Distress: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Managing psychological distress is an objective of palliative care. No meta-analysis has evaluated whether palliative care reduces psychological distress.

OBJECTIVES

Examine the effects of palliative care on depression, anxiety, and general psychological distress for adults with life-limiting illnesses and their caregivers.

DESIGN

We searched PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, and CINAHL for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of palliative care interventions. RCTs were included if they enrolled adults with life-limiting illnesses or their caregivers, reported data on psychological distress at 3 months after study intake, and if authors had described the intervention as "palliative care."

RESULTS

We identified 38 RCTs meeting our inclusion criteria. Many (14/38) included studies excluded participants with common mental health conditions. There were no statistically significant improvements in patient or caregiver anxiety (patient SMD: -0.008, P = 0.96; caregiver SMD: -0.21, P = 0.79), depression (patient SMD: -0.13, P = 0.25; caregiver SMD -0.27, P = 0.08), or psychological distress (patient SMD: 0.26, P = 0.59; caregiver SMD: 0.04, P = 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological distress is not likely to be reduced in the context of a typical palliative care intervention. The systemic exclusion of patients with common mental health conditions in more than 1/3 of the studies raises ethical questions about the goals of palliative care RCTS and could perpetuate inequalities.

Incidence and risk factors of prolonged grief in relatives of patients with terminal cancer in French palliative care units: The Fami-Life multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Psychological consequences of grief among relatives are insufficiently known. We reported incidence of prolonged grief among relatives of deceased patients with cancer.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of 611 relatives of 531 patients with cancer hospitalized for more than 72 hours and who died in 26 palliative care units was conducted. The primary outcome was prolonged grief in relatives 6 months after patient death, measured with the Inventory Complicated Grief (ICG > 25, range 0-76, a higher score indicates more severe symptoms) score. Secondary outcomes in relatives 6 months after patient death were anxiety and depression symptoms based on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score (range 0 [best]-42 [worst]), higher scores indicate more severe symptoms, minimally important difference 2.5. Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms were defined by an Impact Event Scale-Revised score >22 (range 0-88, a higher score indicates more severe symptoms).

RESULTS

Among 611 included relatives, 608 (99.5%) completed the trial. At 6 months, significant ICG scores were reported by 32.7% relatives (199/608, 95% CI, 29.0-36.4). The median (interquartile range ICG score) was 20.0 (11.5-29.0). The incidence of HADS symptoms was 87.5% (95% CI, 84.8-90.2%) at Days 3-5 and 68.7% (95% CI, 65.0-72.4) 6 months after patient's death, with a median (interquartile range) difference of -4 (-10 to 0) between these 2 time points. Improvement in HADS anxiety and depression scores were reported by 62.5% (362/579) relatives.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

These findings support the importance of screening relatives having risk factors of developing prolonged grief in the palliative unit and 6 months after patient's death.

Why Does Grief Hurt?

Abstract. Grief is a major physical and psychological health concern for adults, as well as a key risk factor for depression. The direct and indirect costs of depression in adults place heavy burdens on societal resources. Indeed, bereavement is a stressful and profound life experience, with the grieving process combining reactions to a loss that may originate in complications for bereaved individuals. The goal of this systematic review is to synthesize the findings regarding depression and grief. Studies related to the topic were obtained from multiple databases through rigorous exclusion and inclusion criteria. Only empirical studies with quantitative methodologies were included. Objectives, sample (type of sample, % male, and age), instruments, and main conclusions were extracted from each study. Overall, there are personality and contextual factors that, in addition to affecting depressive reactions following a loss, may also interface with one’s ability to grieve. Furthermore, after the patient’s death, there was a decrease in depressive symptoms over time, indicating that these symptoms are dynamic. Individuals who experience prolonged grief exhibit depressive symptoms, and those who suffer a loss may have depressive symptoms, but in a natural and non-pathological way, that is, sadness and not depression. Depression tends to decrease over time, with the existence of more children and a focus on occupation.

Effectiveness of Brief Contact Interventions for Bereavement: A Systematic Review

Brief contact interventions are an efficient and cost-effective way of providing support to individuals. Whether they are an effective bereavement intervention is not clear. This systematic review included articles from 2014 to 2021.711 studies were identified, with 15 meeting inclusion criteria. The brief contact interventions included informational and emotional supports. Narrative synthesis identified that participants valued brief contact interventions, however some did not find them helpful. Exposure to a brief contact intervention was typically associated with improvements in wellbeing. Studies with comparison groups typically found significant but modest improvements in grief, depression symptoms and wellbeing associated with the intervention. However, one intervention was associated with significant deterioration of depression symptoms. Existing brief contact interventions for bereavement appear feasible, generally acceptable to the target population and are associated with improvements in wellbeing. Further development and evaluation to account for why improvements occur, and to identify any unintended impacts, is required.

The Project ENABLE Cornerstone randomized controlled trial: study protocol for a lay navigator-led, early palliative care coaching intervention for African American and rural-dwelling advanced cancer family caregivers

Background

Family caregivers play a vital, yet stressful role in managing the healthcare needs and optimizing the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer, from the time they are newly diagnosed until end of life. While early telehealth palliative care has been found to effectively support family caregivers, little work has focused on historically under-resourced populations, particularly African American and rural-dwelling individuals. To address this need, we developed and are currently testing Project ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) Cornerstone, a lay navigator-led, early palliative care coaching intervention for family caregivers of African American and rural-dwelling patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer.

Methods

This is a 2-site, single-blind, hybrid type I implementation-effectiveness trial of the Cornerstone intervention versus usual care. Cornerstone is a multicomponent intervention based on Pearlin’s Stress-Health Process Model where African American and/or rural-dwelling family caregivers of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer (target sample size = 294 dyads) are paired with a lay navigator coach and receive a series of six, brief 20–60-min telehealth sessions focused on stress management and coping, caregiving skills, getting help, self-care, and preparing for the future/advance care planning. Subsequent to core sessions, caregivers receive monthly follow-up indefinitely until the patient’s death. Caregiver and patient outcomes are collected at baseline and every 12 weeks until the patient’s death (primary outcome: caregiver distress at 24 weeks; secondary outcomes: caregiver: quality of life and burden; patient: distress, quality of life, and healthcare utilization). Implementation costs and the intervention cost effectiveness are also being evaluated.

Discussion

Should this intervention demonstrate efficacy, it would yield an implementation-ready model of early palliative care support for under-resourced family caregivers. A key design principle that has centrally informed the Cornerstone intervention is that every caregiving situation is unique and each caregiver faces distinct challenges that cannot be addressed using a one-size-fits all approach. Hence, Cornerstone employs culturally savvy lay navigator coaches who are trained to establish a strong, therapeutic alliance with participants and tailor their coaching to a diverse range of individual circumstances.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04318886. Registered on 20 March, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06305-w.

An examination and proposed definitions of family members' grief prior to the death of individuals with a life-limiting illness: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Research has extensively examined family members' grief prior to the death of an individual with a life-limiting illness but several inconsistencies in its conceptualization of related constructs, yet significant conceptualization issues exist.

AIM

This study aimed to identify and characterize studies published on family members grief before the death of an individual with a life-limiting illness, and propose definitions based on past studies in order to initiate conceptual clarity.

DESIGN

A mixed-method systematic review utilized six databases and was last conducted July 10, 2021. The search strategy was developed using Medical Subject Headings. This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020166254).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-four full-text articles met inclusion criteria. This review revealed across studies a wide variation in terminology, conceptualization, and characterization of grief before the death. More than 18 terms and 30 definitions have been used. In many cases, the same term (e.g. anticipatory grief) was defined differently across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We found grief occurring before the death of a person with a life-limiting illness, which we termed pre-death grief, is comprised of two distinct constructs: anticipatory grief and illness-related grief. Anticipatory grief is future-oriented and is characterized by separation distress and worry about a future without the person with the life-limiting illness being physically present. Illness-related grief is present-oriented and is characterized by grief over current and ongoing losses experienced during the illness trajectory. These definitions provide the field with uniform constructs to advance the study of grief before the death of an individual with a life-limiting illness.

A lay navigator-led, early palliative care intervention for African American and rural family caregivers of individuals with advanced cancer (Project Cornerstone): Results of a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) Cornerstone-a lay navigator-led, early palliative care telehealth intervention for African American/Black and/or rural-dwelling family caregivers of individuals with advanced cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03464188).

METHODS

This was a pilot randomized trial (November 2019 to March 2021). Family caregivers of patients with newly diagnosed, stage III/IV, solid-tumor cancers were randomized to receive either an intervention or usual care. Intervention caregivers were paired with a specially trained lay navigator who delivered 6 weekly, 20-minute to 60-minute telehealth coaching sessions plus monthly follow-up for 24 weeks, reviewing skills in stress management, self-care, getting help, staying organized, and future planning. Feasibility was assessed according to the completion of sessions and questionnaires (predefined as a completion rate ≥80%). Acceptability was determined through intervention participants' ratings of their likelihood of recommending the intervention. Measures of caregiver distress and quality of life were collected at 8 and 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Sixty-three family caregivers were randomized (usual care, n = 32; intervention, n = 31). Caregivers completed 65% of intervention sessions and 87% of questionnaires. Average ratings for recommending the program were 9.4, from 1 (not at all likely) to 10 (extremely likely). Over 24 weeks, the mean ± SE Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score improved by 0.30 ± 1.44 points in the intervention group and worsened by 1.99 ± 1.39 points in the usual care group (difference, -2.29; Cohen d, -0.32). The mean between-group difference scores in caregiver quality of life was -1.56 (usual care - intervention; d, -0.07). Similar outcome results were observed for patient participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors piloted ENABLE Cornerstone, an intervention for African American and rural-dwelling advanced cancer family caregivers. The acceptability of the intervention and data collection rates were high, and the preliminary efficacy for caregiver distress was promising.

LAY SUMMARY

To date, very few programs have been developed to support under-resourced cancer family caregivers. To address this need, the authors successfully pilot tested an early palliative care program, called Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends (ENABLE) Cornerstone, for African American and rural family caregivers of individuals with advanced cancer. Cornerstone is led by specially trained lay people and involves a series of weekly phone sessions focused on coaching caregivers to manage stress and provide effective support to patients with cancer. The authors are now testing Cornerstone in a larger trial. If the program demonstrates benefit, it may yield a model of caregiver support that could be widely implemented.

Use of Theoretical Frameworks in the Development and Testing of Palliative Care Interventions

CONTEXT

Palliative care (PC) research has grown over the last 20 years. Yet, the causal components and pathways of PC interventions remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To document the prevalence and application of theoretical frameworks in developing and testing PC interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of previously published systematic reviews of PC randomized clinical trials. Trials were evaluated for explicit mention of a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline that supported the development of the intervention. We used a structured data extraction form to document study population, outcomes, and whether and how authors used a theoretical framework, process/delivery model, or clinical practice guideline. We applied an adapted coding scheme to evaluate use of theoretical frameworks.

RESULTS

We reviewed 85 PC trials conducted between 1984 and 2021. Thirty-eight percent (n = 32) of trials explicitly mentioned a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline as a foundation for the intervention design. Only nine trials included a theoretical framework, while the remaining 23 cited a process/delivery model or clinical practice guideline.

CONCLUSION

Most PC trials do not cite a theoretical foundation for their intervention design. Future work should focus on developing and validating new theoretical frameworks and modifying existing theories and models to better explain the mechanisms of the variety of PC interventions.

An Early Palliative Care Telehealth Coaching Intervention to Enhance Advanced Cancer Family Caregivers' Decision Support Skills: The CASCADE Pilot Factorial Trial

CONTEXT

Patients with advanced cancer often involve family caregivers in health-related decision-making from diagnosis to end-of-life; however, few interventions have been developed to enhance caregiver decision support skills.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of individual intervention components of CASCADE (CAre Supporters Coached to be Adept DEcision Partners), an early telehealth, palliative care coach-led decision support training intervention for caregivers.

METHODS

Pilot factorial trial using the multiphase optimization strategy (October 2019-October 2020). Family caregivers and their care recipients with newly-diagnosed advanced cancer (n = 46 dyads) were randomized to1 of 8 experimental conditions that included a combination of one of the following three CASCADE components: 1) effective decision support psychoeducation; 2) decision support communication training; and 3) Ottawa Decision Guide training. Feasibility was assessed by completion of sessions and questionnaires (predefined as ≥80%). Acceptability was determined through postintervention interviews and participants' ratings of their likelihood to recommend. Measures of effective decision support and caregiver and patient distress were collected at Twelve and Twenty four weeks.

RESULTS

Caregiver participants completed 78% of intervention sessions and 81% of questionnaires; patients completed 80% of questionnaires. Across conditions, average caregiver ratings for recommending the program to others was 9.9 on a scale from 1-Not at all likely to 10-Extremely likely. Individual CASCADE components were observed to have potential benefit for effective decision support and caregiver distress.

CONCLUSION

We successfully piloted a factorial trial design to examine components of a novel intervention to enhance the decision support skills of advanced cancer family caregivers. A fully-powered factorial trial is warranted.

KEY MESSAGE

We pilot tested components of CASCADE, an early palliative care decision support training intervention for family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. CASCADE components were acceptable and the trial design feasible, providing promising future directions for palliative care intervention development and testing. Pilot results will inform a fully-powered trial.

Technology-Based Interventions for Cancer Caregivers: Concept Analysis

Background

Cancer is a taxing chronic disease that demands substantial care, most of which is shouldered by informal caregivers. As a result, cancer caregivers often have to manage considerable challenges that could result in severe physical and psychological health consequences. Technology-based interventions have the potential to address many, if not all, of the obstacles caregivers encounter while caring for patients with cancer. However, although the application of technology-based interventions is on the rise, the term is seldom defined in research or practice. Considering that the lack of conceptual clarity of the term could compromise the effectiveness of technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers, timely research is needed to bridge this gap.

Objective

This study aims to clarify the meaning of technology-based interventions in the context of cancer caregiving and provide a definition that can be used by cancer caregivers, patients, clinicians, and researchers to facilitate evidence-based research and practice.

Methods

The 8-step concept analysis method by Walker and Avant was used to analyze the concept of technology-based interventions in the context of cancer caregiving. PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched for studies that examined technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers.

Results

The defining attributes of technology-based interventions were recognized as being accessible, affordable, convenient, and user-friendly. On the basis of insights gained on the defining attributes, antecedents to, and consequences of technology-based interventions through the concept analysis process, technology-based interventions were defined as the use of technology to design, develop, and deliver health promotion contents and strategies aimed at inducing or improving positive physical or psychological health outcomes in cancer caregivers.

Conclusions

This study clarified the meaning of technology-based interventions in the context of cancer caregiving and provided a clear definition that can be used by caregivers, patients, clinicians, and researchers to facilitate evidence-based oncology practice. A clear conceptualization of technology-based interventions lays foundations for better intervention design and research outcomes, which in turn have the potential to help health care professionals address the needs and preferences of cancer caregivers more cost-effectively.

Caregiver bereavement outcomes in advanced cancer: associations with quality of death and patient age

Purpose

We investigated relationships between domains of quality of dying and death in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers’ bereavement outcomes and the moderating effect of patient age at death.

Methods

Bereaved caregivers of deceased patients with advanced cancer who had participated in an early palliative care trial completed measures of grief (Texas Revised Inventory of Grief [TRIG]), complicated grief (Prolonged Grief Inventory [PG-13]), and depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression [CESD-10]). They also completed the Quality of Dying and Death measure (QODD), which assesses patients’ symptom control, preparation for death, connectedness with loved ones, and sense of peace with death.

Results

A total of 157 bereaved caregivers completed the study. When patient age × QODD subscale interactions were included, greater death preparation was related to less grief at patient death (past TRIG: β =  − .25, p = .04), less current grief (present TRIG: β =  − .26, p = .03), less complicated grief (PG-13: β =  − .37, p = .001), and less depression (CESD-10: β =  − .35, p = .005). Greater symptom control was related to less current grief (present TRIG: β =  − .27, p = .02), less complicated grief (PG-13: β =  − .24, p = .03), and less depression (CESD-10: β =  − .29, p = .01). Significant patient age × connectedness interaction effects for current grief (present TRIG: β = .30, p = .02) and complicated grief (PG-13: β = .29, p = .007) indicated that, with less connectedness, younger patient age at death was associated with greater caregiver grief.

Conclusion

Better end-of-life death preparation and symptom control for patients with cancer may attenuate later caregiver grief and depression. Less connectedness between younger patients and their families may adversely affect caregiver grief.

Virtual models of care for people with palliative care needs living in their own home: A systematic meta-review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Access to palliative care in the community enables people to live in their preferred place of care, which is often home. Community palliative care services struggle to provide timely 24-h services to patients and family. This has resulted in calls for 'accessible and flexible' models of care that are 'responsive' to peoples' changing palliative care needs. Digital health technologies provide opportunities to meet these requirements 24-h a day.

AIM

To identify digital health technologies that have been evaluated for supporting timely assessment and management of people living at home with palliative care needs and/or their carer(s), and the evidence-base for each.

DESIGN

A systematic review of systematic reviews ('meta-review'). Systematic reviews evaluating evidence for virtual models of palliative or end-of-life care using one or more digital health technologies were included. Systematic reviews were evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool for Systematic Reviews. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of systematic reviews were searched for English-language reviews published between 2015 and 2020.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2266 articles, of which 12 systematic reviews met criteria. Sixteen reviews were included in total, after four reviews were found via handsearching. Other than scheduled telehealth, video-conferencing, or after-hours telephone support, little evidence was found for digital health technologies used to deliver virtual models of palliative care.

CONCLUSIONS

There are opportunities to test new models of virtual care, beyond telehealth and/or video conferencing, such as 24-h command centres, and rapid response teams.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

Prospero CRD42020200266.

Spirituality-Integrated Interventions for Caregivers of Patients with Terminal Illness: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Outcomes

This systematic review of published quantitative research was conducted to explore the effects of spirituality-integrated interventions for informal caregivers of terminally ill patients. Multiple databases were searched for articles published between January 2004 and November 2019. Twelve randomized controlled trials were identified. Methodological quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Studies were notably diverse in terms of spiritual background, intervention design, technology used, and outcomes measures. Spirituality-integrated interventions were found to show positive outcomes for caregivers. However, methodological flaws negatively affected the quality of most studies, warranting further and rigorous research into the topic.

Telehealth Strategies to Support Patients and Families Across the Cancer Trajectory

Effective delivery of cancer care via telehealth requires a planned care system that accounts for myriad patient, provider, and practice/cancer center resources before, during, and after the care episode. Telehealth is broadly defined as a method to have virtual, bidirectional communication between patients and providers. Telehealth can include methods such as audio-only, video-consultation, and tele-monitoring, which can occur in a synchronous, asynchronous, or blended format. The purpose of this review is to present common foundational principles for providing clinical cancer care via telehealth, followed by an overview of three distinct examples of comprehensive telehealth programs that have been developed to meet the needs of patients and families across the cancer trajectory, including survivorship, rehabilitation, and palliative care phases. The programs described are exemplars that were developed and implemented prior to the coronavirus pandemic, so they reflect many years of planning and evidence. Lessons learned include the need for ongoing patient support, clinician training, and cancer health system/practice programmatic considerations such as billing, scheduling, reimbursement, software, and hardware/platform security. Although the COVID-19 pandemic produced an explosive shift in regulations and implementation, sustainability of these changes may not be long-term. Nevertheless, a permanent shift in cancer care to include telehealth is likely here to stay.

Telehealth Interventions for Family Caregivers of Persons with Chronic Health Conditions: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to provide an in-depth analysis of the components and outcomes of telehealth interventions for family caregivers of individuals with chronic health conditions.

METHODS

A systematic review of 17 databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials published between January 2002 and January 2017. Interventions were analyzed based on type of telecommunication modality, caregiver and care recipient characteristics, intervention components, and caregiver outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 57 articles met criteria for inclusion. Telephone was the most frequently used mode of telehealth delivery and focused primarily on caregivers of older adults with dementia and stroke. Skills training was the most prevalent treatment strategy across telephone, web, and combined telephone and web modalities. Improved psychological functioning was reported most frequently across telehealth modalities.

CONCLUSION

Telehealth is an effective tool in delivering caregiver interventions and leads to significant improvement in caregiver outcomes. Telephone was used most often to deliver cognitive-behavioral and psychoeducational strategies as compared to web and combined telephone and web modalities. Further research is needed to examine the effects of telehealth interventions on caregiving skills and self-efficacy, as well as health outcomes.

Hospital-based specialist palliative care compared with usual care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers: a systematic review

Background

Most deaths still take place in hospital; cost-effective commissioning of end-of-life resources is a priority. This review provides clarity on the effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Objectives

The objectives were to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Population

Adult patients with advanced illnesses and their unpaid caregivers.

Intervention

Hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Comparators

Inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry to the study, or community care or hospice care provided outside the hospital setting (usual care).

Primary outcomes

Patient health-related quality of life and symptom burden.

Data sources

Six databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and CareSearch), clinical trial registers, reference lists and systematic reviews were searched to August 2019.

Review methods

Two independent reviewers screened, data extracted and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark), with separate synthesis of qualitative data.

Results

Forty-two randomised controlled trials involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 unpaid caregivers) were included. Diagnoses of participants were as follows: cancer, 21 studies; non-cancer, 14 studies; and mixed cancer and non-cancer, seven studies. Hospital-based specialist palliative care was offered in the following models: ward based (one study), inpatient consult (10 studies), outpatient (six studies), hospital at home or hospital outreach (five studies) and multiple settings that included hospital (20 studies). Meta-analyses demonstrated significant improvement favouring hospital-based specialist palliative care over usual care in patient health-related quality of life (10 studies, standardised mean difference 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.37; I 2 = 3%) and patient satisfaction with care (two studies, standardised mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57; I 2 = 0%), a significant reduction in patient symptom burden (six studies, standardised mean difference –0.26, 95% confidence interval –0.41 to –0.12; I 2 = 0%) and patient depression (eight studies, standardised mean difference –0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.34 to –0.10; I 2 = 0%), and a significant increase in the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by number of patients with home death) (seven studies, odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.16; I 2 = 0%). There were non-significant improvements in pain (four studies, standardised mean difference –0.16, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and patient anxiety (five studies, mean difference –0.63, 95% confidence interval –2.22 to 0.96; I 2 = 76%). Hospital-based specialist palliative care showed no evidence of causing serious harm. The evidence on mortality/survival and cost-effectiveness was inconclusive. Qualitative studies (10 studies, 322 participants) suggested that hospital-based specialist palliative care was beneficial as it ensured personalised and holistic care for patients and their families, while also fostering open communication, shared decision-making and respectful and compassionate care.

Limitation

In almost half of the included randomised controlled trials, there was palliative care involvement in the control group.

Conclusions

Hospital-based specialist palliative care may offer benefits for person-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, symptom burden, patient depression and satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death) with little evidence of harm.

Future work

More studies are needed of populations with non-malignant diseases, different models of hospital-based specialist palliative care, and cost-effectiveness.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017083205.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Palliative care in day-hospital for advanced cancer patients: a study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background

Team-based and timely integrated palliative care is a gold standard of care in oncology, but issues concerning its optimal organization remain. Palliative Care in Day-Hospital (PCDH) could be one of the most efficient service model of palliative care to deliver interdisciplinary and multidimensional care addressing the complex supportive care needs of patients with advanced cancer. We hypothesize that, compared to conventional outpatient palliative care, PCDH allows the clinical benefits of palliative care to be enhanced.

Methods/design

This study is a multicentre parallel group trial with stratified randomization. Patient management in PCDH will be compared to conventional outpatient palliative care. The inclusion criteria are advanced cancer patients referred to a palliative care team with an estimated life expectancy of more than 2 months and less than 1 year. The primary endpoint is health-related quality of life with deterioration-free survival based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. The secondary objectives are the following: increase in patient satisfaction with care using the EORTC PATSAT-C33 and OUT-PATSAT7 questionnaires, better understanding of the prognosis using the PTPQ questionnaire and advance care planning; decrease in the need for supportive care among relatives using the SCNS-P&C-F questionnaire, and reduction in end-of-life care aggressiveness. Patients will complete one to five questionnaires on a tablet before each monthly visit over 6 months and will be followed for 1 year. A qualitative study will take place, aiming to understand the specificity of palliative care management in PCDH. Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and, an additional economic evaluation based on capability approach will be conducted from a societal point of view.

Discussion

The first strength of this study is that it combines the main relevant outcomes assessing integrated palliative care; patient quality of life and satisfaction; discussion of the prognosis and advance care planning, family well-being and end-of-life care aggressiveness. The second strength of the study is that it is a mixed-method study associating a qualitative analysis of the specificity of PCDH organization, with a medical-economic study to analyse the cost of care.

Trial registration

Name of the registry: IDRCB 2019-A03116–51

Trial registration number:NCT04604873

Date of registration: October 27, 2020

URL of trial registry record

A Qualitative Study Describing Pediatric Palliative Care in Non-Metropolitan Areas of Illinois

BACKGROUND

There is little information about providing pediatric palliative care (PPC) in non-metropolitan areas.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the strengths of and challenges to delivering PPC in non-metropolitan communities and identify opportunities to improve care delivery.

DESIGN

A qualitative study involving focus groups (FGs) with PPC stakeholders.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

From 4 non-metropolitan areas in Illinois, we recruited 3 stakeholder groups: healthcare providers (HPs); bereaved parents; and parents caring for a seriously ill child (SIC).

MEASUREMENTS

At each site, we held an FG with people of the same stakeholder group and then an FG involving all stakeholders. Discussion topics included: availability and strengths of local PPC services, barriers to local PPC, opportunities for improving local PPC access and quality, and clinician educational needs. We analyzed data using phenomenology and directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty people, 12 parents and 18 HPs, participated in FGs. Identified themes related to: PPC perceptions; availability and use of local resources; and challenges associated with travel, care coordination, and finances. Participants described benefits of and limits to local PPC including pediatric-specific issues such as attending to siblings, creating child peer-support activities, providing school guidance, and financing for PPC. Recommendations included suggestions to enhance care coordination, use existing resources, improve community and provider education, develop community networks, and minimize financial challenges.

CONCLUSION

Unique PPC challenges exist in non-metropolitan areas. PPC in non-metropolitan areas would benefit from enhancing local resource utilization and quality. Future work should address the challenges to providing PPC in non-metropolitan areas with a focus on pediatric-specific issues.

Technology-based health solutions for cancer caregivers to better shoulder the impact of COVID-19: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, partially owing to their compromised immune systems and curbed or cut cancer healthcare services caused by the pandemic. As a result, cancer caregivers may have to shoulder triple crises: the COVID-19 pandemic, pronounced healthcare needs from the patient, and elevated need for care from within. While technology-based health interventions have the potential to address unique challenges cancer caregivers face amid COVID-19, limited insights are available. Thus, to bridge this gap, we aim to identify technology-based interventions designed for cancer caregivers and report the characteristics and effects of these interventions concerning cancer caregivers' distinctive challenges amid COVID-19.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from the database inception to the end of March 2021. Articles that center on technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers will be included in the review. The search strategy will be developed in consultation with an academic librarian who is experienced in systematic review studies. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles will be screened against eligibility criteria developed a priori. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedures will be followed for the reporting process.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 has upended cancer care as we know it. Findings of this study can shed light on evidence-based and practical solutions cancer caregivers can utilize to mitigate the unique challenges they face amid COVID-19. Furthermore, results of this study will also offer valuable insights for researchers who aim to develop interventions for cancer caregivers in the context of COVID-19. In addition, we also expect to be able to identify areas for improvement that need to be addressed in order for health experts to more adequately help cancer caregivers weather the storm of global health crises like COVID-19 and beyond. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020196301.

Technology-based Health Solutions for Cancer Caregivers to Better Shoulder the Impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review Protocol

Background

Cancer patients are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, partially owing to their compromised immune systems and curbed or cut cancer healthcare services caused by the pandemic. As a result, cancer caregivers may have to shoulder triple crises: the COVID-19 pandemic, pronounced healthcare needs from the patient, and elevated need for care from within. While technology-based health interventions have the potential to address unique challenges cancer caregivers face amid COVID-19, limited insights are available. Thus, to bridge this gap, we aim to identify technology-based interventions designed for cancer caregivers and report the characteristics and effects of these interventions concerning cancer caregivers' distinctive challenges amid COVID-19.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from the database inception to the end of March, 2021. Articles that center on technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers will be included in the review. The search strategy will be developed in consultation with an academic librarian who is experienced in systematic review studies. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles will be screened against eligibility criteria developed a priori. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedures will be followed for the reporting process.

Conclusions

COVID-19 has upended cancer care as we know it. Findings of this study can shed light on evidence-based and practical solutions cancer caregivers can utilize to mitigate the unique challenges they face amid COVID-19. Furthermore, results of this study will also offer valuable insights for researchers who aim to develop interventions for cancer caregivers in the context of COVID-19. In addition, we also expect to be able to identify areas for improvement that need to be addressed in order for health experts to more adequately help cancer caregivers weather the storm of global health crises like COVID-19 and beyond.

Study Protocol Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020196301.

Technology-based Health Solutions for Cancer Caregivers to Better Shoulder the Impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review Protocol

Background: Cancer patients are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, partially owing to their compromised immune systems and curbed or cut cancer healthcare services caused by the pandemic. As a result, cancer caregivers may have to shoulder triple crises: the COVID-19 pandemic, pronounced healthcare needs from the patient, and elevated need for care from within. While technology-based health interventions have the potential to address unique challenges cancer caregivers face amid COVID-19, limited insights are available. Thus, to bridge this gap, we aim to identify technology-based interventions designed for cancer caregivers and report the characteristics and effects of these interventions concerning cancer caregivers' distinctive challenges amid COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search of the literature will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from the database inception to the end of March, 2021. Articles that center on technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers will be included in the review. The search strategy will be developed in consultation with an academic librarian who is experienced in systematic review studies. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles will be screened against eligibility criteria developed a priori . The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedures will be followed for the reporting process. Conclusions: COVID-19 has upended cancer care as we know it. Findings of this study can shed light on evidence-based and practical solutions cancer caregivers can utilize to mitigate the unique challenges they face amid COVID-19. Furthermore, results of this study will also offer valuable insights for researchers who aim to develop interventions for cancer caregivers in the context of COVID-19. In addition, we also expect to be able to identify areas for improvement that need to be addressed in order for health experts to more adequately help cancer caregivers weather the storm of global health crises like COVID-19 and beyond. Study Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020196301.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I² = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I² = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I² = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Bereavement and Grief

Palliative care (PC) focuses on caring for the whole person, from birth to death, while managing symptoms and helping to navigate medical complexities. Care does not stop at the time of death, however, as assisting patients, families, and fellow clinicians through grief and bereavement is within PC's purview. Unfortunately, many clinicians feel unprepared to deal with these topics. In this article, PC and hospice clinicians define and explain bereavement, distinguish normative grief from pathological grief, offer psychometrically sound scales to screen and follow those suffering from grief, and discuss the interaction between grief and bereavement and the physical and mental health of those who are left behind after the death of a loved one.

Complicated Grief: Risk Factors, Protective Factors, and Interventions

Complicated grief (CG) poses significant physical, psychological, and economic risks to bereaved family caregivers. An integrative review of the literature published 2009-2018 on CG associated with caregiving was performed using PubMed, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. The search returned 1428 articles, of which 32 were included in the review. Sixteen studies described risk and protective factors and 16 described interventions for CG. Caregiver-related risk factors included fewer years of education, depression, anxiety, poor physical health, and maladaptive dependency and attachment traits. Additional risk factors included lower perceived social support, family conflict at end-of-life, and family having difficulty accepting death. Care recipient-related risk factors are younger age, fear of death, and place of death. Protective factors included hospice utilization in reducing fear of death, high pre-bereavement spiritualty, and satisfaction with palliative care. Complicated grief treatment was the most widely-studied intervention. Social Workers and other clinicians can use this information to identify family caregivers at increased risk for CG and refer or implement an early intervention to lessen its impact.

Palliative Care for Family Caregivers

Family caregivers provide substantial care for patients with advanced cancer, while suffering from hidden morbidity and unmet needs. The objectives of this review were to examine risk factors associated with caregiving for patients with advanced cancer, evaluate the evidence for pertinent interventions, and provide a practical framework for palliative care of caregivers in oncology settings. We reviewed studies examining the association of factors at the level of the caregiver, patient, caregiver-patient relationship, and caregiving itself, with adverse outcomes. In addition, we reviewed randomized controlled trials of interventions targeting the caregiver, the caregiver-patient dyad, or the patient and their family. Risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes included those related to the patient's declining status, symptom distress, and poor prognostic understanding; risk factors for adverse bereavement outcomes included unfavorable circumstances of the patient's death. Among the 16 randomized trials, the most promising results showed improvement of depression resulting from early palliative care interventions; results for quality of life were generally nonsignificant or showed an effect only on some subscales. Caregiving outcomes included burden, appraisal, and competence, among others, and showed mixed findings. Only three trials measured bereavement outcomes, with mostly nonsignificant results. On the basis of existent literature and our clinical experience, we propose the CARES framework to guide care for caregivers in oncology settings: Considering caregivers as part of the unit of care, Assessing the caregiver's situation and needs, Referring to appropriate services and resources, Educating about practical aspects of caregiving, and Supporting caregivers through bereavement. Additional trials are needed that are powered specifically for caregiver outcomes, use measures validated for advanced cancer caregivers, and test real-world interventions.

Forging a New Frontier: Providing Palliative Care to People With Cancer in Rural and Remote Areas

Mounting evidence supports oncology organizations' recommendations of early palliative care as a cancer care best practice for patients with advanced cancer and/or high symptom burden. However, few trials on which these best practices are based have included rural and remote community-based oncology care. Therefore, little is known about whether early palliative care models are applicable in these low-resource areas. This literature synthesis identifies some of the challenges of integrating palliative care in rural and remote cancer care. Prominent themes include being mindful of rural culture; adapting traditional geographically based specialty care delivery models to under-resourced rural practices; and using novel palliative care education delivery methods to increase community-based health professional, layperson, and family palliative expertise to account for limited local specialty palliative care resources. Although there are many limitations, many rural and remote communities also have strengths in their capacity to provide high-quality care by capitalizing on close-knit, committed community practitioners, especially if there are receptive local palliative and hospice care champions. Hence, adapting palliative care models, using culturally appropriate novel delivery methods, and providing remote education and support to existing community providers are promising advances to aid rural people to manage serious illness and to die in place. Reformulating health policy and nurturing academic-community partnerships that support best practices are critical components of providing early palliative care for everyone everywhere.

The project ENABLE Cornerstone randomized pilot trial: Protocol for lay navigator-led early palliative care for African-American and rural advanced cancer family caregivers

BACKGROUND

Patients newly-diagnosed with advanced cancer often rely on family caregivers to provide daily support to manage healthcare needs and maintain quality of life. Early telehealth palliative care has been shown to effectively provide an extra layer of support to family caregivers, however there has been little work with underserved populations, especially African-Americans and rural-dwellers. This is concerning given the lack of palliative care access for these underserved groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Single-site, small-scale pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Project ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) Cornerstone, a lay navigator-led, early palliative care coaching intervention for family caregivers of African-American and rural-dwelling patients with newly-diagnosed advanced cancer. Family caregivers are paired with a trained lay navigator overseen by specialist palliative care clinicians and receive a series of brief in-person and telehealth sessions focusing on stress management and coping, caregiving skills and organization, getting help, self-care, and preparing for the future/advance care planning. This pilot trial is assessing acceptability of the intervention, feasibility of recruitment and data collection procedures, and preliminary efficacy compared to usual care on caregiver and patient quality of life and mood over 24 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Once acceptability and feasibility are determined and issues addressed, the ENABLE Cornerstone intervention for underserved family caregivers of persons with advanced cancer will be primed for a fully powered efficacy RCT. Given its use of lay navigators and telehealth delivery, the intervention is potentially highly scalable and capable of overcoming many of the geographic, human resource, and cultural obstacles to accessing early palliative care support.

Interventions to help support caregivers of people with a brain or spinal cord tumour

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis and treatment of a brain or spinal cord tumour can have a huge impact on the lives of patients and their families with family caregiving often resulting in considerable burden and distress. Meeting the support needs of family caregivers is critical to maintain their emotional and physical health. Although support for caregivers is becoming more widely available, large-scale implementation is hindered by a lack of high-quality evidence for its effectiveness in the neuro-oncology caregiver population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of supportive interventions at improving the well-being of caregivers of people with a brain or spinal cord tumour. To assess the effects of supportive interventions for caregivers in improving the physical and emotional well-being of people with a brain or spinal cord tumour and to evaluate the health economic benefits of supportive interventions for caregivers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid. We also handsearched relevant published conference abstracts (previous five years), publications in the two main journals in the field (previous year), searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov, and contacted research groups in the field. The initial search was in March 2017 with an update in August 2018 (handsearches completed in January 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where caregivers of neuro-oncology patients constituted more than 20% of the sample and which evaluated changes in caregiver well-being following any supportive intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and carried out risk of bias assessments. We aimed to extract data on the outcomes of psychological distress, burden, mastery, quality of patient-caregiver relationship, quality of life, and physical functioning.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, the search identified 2102 records, of which we reviewed 144 in full text. We included eight studies. Four interventions focused on patient-caregiver dyads and four were aimed specifically at the caregiver. Heterogeneity of populations and methodologies precluded meta-analysis. Risk of bias varied, and all studies included only small numbers of neuro-oncology caregivers (13 to 56 participants). There was some evidence for positive effects of caregiver support on psychological distress, mastery, and quality of life (low to very low certainty of evidence). No studies reported significant effects on caregiver burden or quality of patient-caregiver relationship (low to very low certainty of evidence). None of the studies assessed caregiver physical functioning. For secondary outcomes (patient emotional or physical well-being; health economic effects), we found very little to no evidence for the effectiveness of caregiver support. We identified five ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The eight small-scale studies included employed different methodologies across different populations, with low certainty of evidence overall. It is not currently possible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the effectiveness of supportive interventions aimed at improving neuro-oncology caregiver well-being. More high-quality research is needed on support for family caregivers of people diagnosed, and living, with a brain or spinal cord tumour.

Effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care Communication Intervention on Personal Caregiver Experiences of Cancer Care and Bereavement Outcomes

Background: Care teams are increasingly expected to attend to the needs of patient's personal caregivers (e.g., family members). Improving communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers might enhance caregivers' experiences of end-of-life (EoL) cancer care and bereavement outcomes. Objective: To explore the effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care intervention on caregivers' experiences of EoL care and bereavement outcomes. Design: We developed a brief behavioral intervention to improve communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers. The intervention was designed to help patients/caregivers ask questions, express concerns, and help oncologists respond effectively. We randomly assigned oncologists (and their patients/caregivers) to the intervention or usual care. Setting/Subjects: Medical oncologists in NY and CA; patients/personal caregivers with advanced cancer. Measurements: Two months after the patient's death, caregivers completed three instruments assessing their experiences of EoL care. Seven months after the patient's death, caregivers completed the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 (PG-13; primary prespecified outcome), the Purpose-in-Life scale, and scales assessing mental health function, depression, and anxiety. Results: The intervention did not significantly improve caregivers' scores on the PG-13 (p = 0.21), mental health function, depression, or anxiety, but it did improve purpose-in-life scores (p = 0.018). Cohen's d (95% confidence interval) for all three experiences of EoL care outcomes were promising, ranging from 0.22 (-0.19 to 0.63) to 0.39 (-0.07 to 0.86) although none was statistically significant. Conclusion: Preliminary findings show promise that scalable interventions in cancer care settings may improve caregiver experiences with cancer care and some bereavement outcomes.

Psychosocial interventions for informal caregivers of people living with cancer

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, cancer is recognised as a chronic condition with a growing population of informal caregivers providing care for cancer patients. Informal caregiving can negatively affect the health and well-being of caregivers. We need a synthesised account of best evidence to aid decision-making about effective ways to support caregivers for individuals 'living with cancer'.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions designed to improve the quality of life (QoL), physical health and well-being of informal caregivers of people living with cancer compared with usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Open SIGLE, Web of Science from inception up to January 2018, trial registries and citation lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions delivered to adult informal caregivers of adults affected by cancer on a group or individual basis with usual care. Psychosocial interventions included non-pharmacological interventions that involved an interpersonal relationship between caregivers and healthcare professionals. We included interventions delivered also to caregiver-patient dyads. Interventions delivered to caregivers of individuals receiving palliative or inpatient care were excluded. Our primary outcome was caregiver QoL. Secondary outcomes included patient QoL, caregiver and patient depression, anxiety, psychological distress, physical health status and intervention satisfaction and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and conducted 'Risk of bias' assessments. We synthesised findings using meta-analysis, where possible, and reported remaining results in a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials (n = 3, 725) were included in the review. All trials were reported in English and were undertaken in high-income countries. Trials targeted caregivers of patients affected by a number of cancers spanning newly diagnosed patients, patients awaiting treatment, patients who were being treated currently and individuals post-treatment. Most trials delivered interventions to caregiver-patient dyads (predominantly spousal dyads) and there was variation in intervention delivery to groups or individual participants. There was much heterogeneity across interventions though the majority were defined as psycho-educational. All trials were rated as being at 'high risk of bias'.Compared to usual care, psychosocial interventions may improve slightly caregiver QoL immediately post intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.53; studies = 2, 265 participants) and may have little to no effect on caregiver QoL at 12 months (SMD 0.14, 95% CI - 0.11 to 0.40; studies = 2, 239 participants) post-intervention (both low-quality evidence).Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on caregiver depression immediately to one-month post-intervention (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.15; studies = 9, 702 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on caregiver anxiety immediately post-intervention (SMD -0.12, 95 % CI -0.33 to 0.10; studies = 5, 329 participants), depression three-to-six months (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.38; studies = 5. 379 participants) post-intervention and patient QoL six to 12 months (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.26; studies = 3, 294 participants) post-intervention (all low-quality evidence). There was uncertainty whether psychosocial interventions improve patient QoL immediately (SMD -0.03, 95 %CI -0.50 to 0.44; studies = 2, 292 participants) or caregiver anxiety three-to-six months (SMD-0.25, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.13; studies = 4, 272 participants) post-intervention (both very low-quality evidence). Two studies which could not be pooled in a meta-analysis for caregiver physical health status found little to no effect immediately post-intervention and a small intervention effect 12 months post-intervention. Caregiver or patient satisfaction or cost-effectiveness of interventions were not assessed in any studies. Interventions demonstrated good feasibility and acceptability.Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on patient physical health status immediately post-intervention (SMD 0.17, 95 % CI -0.07 to 0.41; studies = 4, 461 participants) and patient depression three to six months post-intervention (SMD-0.11, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.12; studies = 6, 534 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence).Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on caregiver psychological distress immediately to one-month (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.26; studies = 3, 134 participants), and seven to 12 months (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.58; studies = 2, 62 participants) post-intervention; patient depression immediately (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; studies = 9, 852 participants); anxiety immediately (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.15;studies = 4, 422 participants), and three to six months (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.02; studies = 4, 370 participants); psychological distress immediately (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.44; studies = 2, 74 participants) and seven to 12 months (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.24; studies = 2, 61 participants); and physical health status six to 12 months (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.30; studies = 2, 275 participants) post-intervention (all low-quality evidence).Three trials reported adverse effects associated with the interventions, compared with usual care, including higher distress, sexual function-related distress and lower relationship satisfaction levels for caregivers, higher distress levels for patients, and that some content was perceived as insensitive to some participants.Trials not able to be pooled in a meta-analysis did not tend to report effect size and it was difficult to discern intervention effectiveness. Variable intervention effects were reported for patient and caregiver outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity across studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for this population. There is an immediate need for rigorous trials with process evaluations and clearer, detailed intervention descriptions. Cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted alongside future trials.

Evolution and Conceptual Foundations of Nonhospice Palliative Care

The term nonhospice palliative care was developed to describe and differentiate palliative care that is delivered prior to the end of life. The purpose of this article is to better define and clarify this concept using Rodgers’s evolutionary concept analysis method. Attributes of nonhospice palliative care include (a) patient- and family-centered care, (b) holistic care, (c) interdisciplinary team, (d) early intervention, (e) quality of life-enhancing, (f) advanced care planning, (g) any age of the patient, (h) at any stage in illness, (i) care coordination, (j) concurrent curative treatment options, and (k) provided by primary and specialist providers. Nonhospice palliative care antecedents are serious illness, education, and access to services; consequences include benefits for the patient, family, provider, and health care system. Offering a clearly defined concept may allow for changes in health care to improve access to these services.

[Early palliative care in oncology]

Early palliative care is now recommended in international guidelines. A meta-analyze combining seven randomized studies has been published in 2007. It confirms that early palliative care improves patient's quality of life and reduces symptom burden. There is also a trend for the reduction of depressive disorder and the increase of overall survival. Other studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life of patient's relatives and reduces end of life care aggressiveness. Most of the time, early palliative care is introduced as soon as the diagnosis of advanced cancer is made, and the precise referral criteria need to be addressed. Other studies have assessed the palliative care consultation; patient-centered care, focusing on symptom management, filling information and education needs about illness and prognosis, helping psychologic adaptation and coping.

Effect of home-based specialised palliative care and dyadic psychological intervention on caregiver anxiety and depression: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Specialised palliative care trials often fail to address intervention effects on caregiver anxiety and depression, particularly in bereavement. We evaluate effects of specialised palliative care and dyadic psychological intervention on caregiver anxiety and depression in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

Patients with incurable cancer and limited antineoplastic treatment options and their caregivers, recruited from a university hospital oncology department, were randomised (1:1) to care as usual or accelerated transition from oncological treatment to home-based specialised palliative care. We assessed caregivers’ symptoms of anxiety and depression with the Symptom Checklist-92 up to six months after randomisation and 19 months into bereavement, and estimated intervention effects in mixed effects models.

Results

The ‘Domus’ trial enrolled 258 caregivers. The intervention significantly attenuated increases in caregivers’ symptoms of anxiety overall (estimated difference, −0.12; 95% confidence interval, −0.22 to −0.01, p = 0.0266), and symptoms of depression at eight weeks (−0.17; −0.33 to −0.02; p = 0.0314), six months (−0.27; −0.49 to −0.05; p = 0.0165), and in bereavement at two weeks (−0.28; −0.52 to −0.03; p = 0.0295) and two months (−0.24; −0.48 to −0.01; p = 0.0448).

Conclusions

This first RCT evaluating specialised palliative care with dyadic psychological support significantly attenuated caregiver anxiety and depression before and during bereavement. (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01885637)

Telemedicine Use Among Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The number of published studies and systematic reviews examining different telehealth interventions targeting patients and their effects on patients' well-being and quality of life have grown in recent decades. However, the use of telemedicine tools aimed at the family members and caregivers of adult cancer patients is less defined.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct a systematic review to provide a more complete picture regarding telemedicine tools for informal caregivers (usually family members or close friends) implemented in all phases of cancer care. More specifically, the review aimed to better describe the study samples' characteristics, to analyze measured outcomes and the specific questionnaires used to assess them, and to describe in depth the implemented interventions and their formats. Finally, we examined the role of telehealth, and usability and feasibility trends in supporting patients' caregivers.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature in the following databases: Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO. Inclusion criteria were being written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, describing a telehealth-implemented intervention, and focusing on caregivers of adult cancer patients at any stage of the disease. We selected studies published up to November 2017. We critically appraised included articles using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and graded the quality of evidence by outcome using the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine framework.

RESULTS

We included 24 studies in the final selection. In 21 of the 24 studies, the patient-caregiver dyad was analyzed, and the study population dealt with different types of cancer at different stages. Included studies considered the caregiver's condition from both an individual and a relational point of view. Along with psychosocial variables, some studies monitored engagement and user satisfaction regarding Web-based platforms or telehealth interventions. All studies reported significant improvements in some of the investigated areas, but they often showed small effect sizes. Two types of telehealth intervention formats were used: Web-based platforms and telephone calls. Some of the included studies referred to the same project, but on study samples with different cancer diagnoses or with new versions of previously developed interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported outcomes seem to suggest that we are in an exploratory phase. More detailed and targeted research hypotheses are still needed. Clarifying caregivers' needs related to telehealth tools and better defining outcome measures may yield more significant results.

Supporting cancer family caregivers: How can frontline oncology clinicians help?

There is growing recognition of the demands placed on unpaid family members of patients with cancer, the need to support family caregivers, and the barriers that exist to meeting their needs. This commentary offers several messages that oncology providers can deliver to family caregivers to support them and empower them to seek the services they need.

Developing a "toolkit" to measure implementation of concurrent palliative care in rural community cancer centers

OBJECTIVE

Despite national guidelines recommending early concurrent palliative care for individuals newly diagnosed with metastatic cancer, few community cancer centers, especially those in underserved rural areas do so. We are implementing an early concurrent palliative care model, ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) in four, rural-serving community cancer centers. Our objective was to develop a "toolkit" to assist community cancer centers that wish to integrate early palliative care for patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer and their family caregivers.

METHOD

Guided by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness-Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, we undertook an instrument-development process based on the literature, expert and site stakeholder review and feedback, and pilot testing during site visits.

RESULTS

We developed four instruments to measure ENABLE implementation: (1) the ENABLE RE-AIM Self-Assessment Tool to assess reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance; (2) the ENABLE General Organizational Index to assess institutional implementation; (3) an Implementation Costs Tool; and (4) an Oncology Clinicians' Perceptions of Early Concurrent Oncology Palliative Care survey.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

We developed four measures to determine early palliative care implementation. These measures have been pilot-tested, and will be integrated into a comprehensive "toolkit" to assist community cancer centers to measure implementation outcomes. We describe the lessons learned and recommend strategies for promoting long-term program sustainability.

End-of-Life Care Matters: Palliative Cancer Care Results in Better Care and Lower Costs

This article reviews the current state of end‐of‐life care, analyzes the clinical and financial impact of palliative care, and proposes areas of future research and development.