A Randomized Trial of Acceptability and Effects of Values-Based Advance Care Planning in Outpatient Oncology: Person-Centered Oncologic Care and Choices

Beyond translation: Transcreation of a clinicians' guide to structure discussions about health-related values with Latinx patients throughout cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ensure accurate translation and cultural appropriateness of a guide designed to help oncology clinicians provide person-centered care to Spanish-speaking Latinx patients with cancer.

METHODS

Initial translation of a clinician-patient values discussion guide in open-ended question format ("Guide") was pretested in interviews with 27 Spanish-speaking individuals, followed by national expert panel review. At three sites, semi-structured, in-depth, audio-recorded interviews in the participant's preferred language (Spanish/English) were then conducted with Latinx patients receiving systemic treatment for a solid tumor malignancy and family joining them at clinic.

RESULTS

Interviews of 43 patient/family participants representing diverse Latinx communities addressed the Guide's understandability, acceptability, relevance and responsiveness. Rapid analysis of interviews contributed to cultural adaptation/transcreation of the Guide for a pilot interventional trial.

CONCLUSION

Moving beyond translation to transcreation can help promote inclusion, equity, and cultural sensitivity in oncologic care/communication.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians now have a linguistically- and culturally-adapted guide including questions and prompts to help structure discussions in Spanish or English of health-related values with Latinx patients receiving oncologic care.

The feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a self-advocacy serious game for women with advanced breast or gynecologic cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer clinicians and systems aim to provide patient-centered care, but not all patients have the self-advocacy skills necessary to ensure their care reflects their needs and priorities. This study examines the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a self-advocacy serious game (an educational video game) intervention in women with advanced breast or gynecologic cancer.

METHODS

Women with recently diagnosed (<3 months) metastatic breast or advanced gynecologic cancer were randomized 2:1 to receive a tablet-based serious game (Strong Together) (n = 52) or enhanced care as usual (n = 26). Feasibility was based on recruitment, retention, data completion, and intervention engagement. Acceptability was assessed via a postintervention questionnaire and exit interview. Preliminary efficacy was assessed on the basis of change scores from baseline to 3 and 6 months in self-advocacy (Female Self-Advocacy in Cancer Survivorship Scale) using intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight women (55.1% with breast cancer; 44.9% with gynecologic cancer) were enrolled. Feasibility was demonstrated by satisfactory recruitment (69% approach-to-consent rate; 93% enroll-to-randomize rate), retention (90% and 86% at 3 and 6 months, respectively; 85% data completion), and intervention engagement (84% completed ≥75% of the game). Participants endorsed the intervention's (75%) and trial's (87%) acceptability. Participants in the intervention group experienced significant improvements in self-advocacy at 3 and 6 months compared to participants in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong Together is feasible and acceptable among women with advanced breast or gynecologic cancer. This intervention demonstrates promising evidence of clinical efficacy. A future confirmatory trial is warranted to test the efficacy of the intervention for patient and health system outcomes.

Patient Portals to Elicit Essential Patient-Reported Elements of Communication Supporting Person-Centered Oncologic Care: A Pilot Study of the PERSON Approach

PURPOSE

Patient portal technology offers important new opportunities to support person-centered clinician-patient communication.

METHODS

Questionnaires relating to understanding of illness and treatment intent were sent quarterly via portal to all patients scheduled for follow-up in GI medical oncology clinics. For patients in selected clinics, items eliciting health-related values were added. Patient responses were available to all oncology team members in the electronic health record. Workflow and content of clinician-patient discussions about illness, treatment, and care goals stayed within clinicians' discretion. Feasibility (patient response rate), patient understanding, acceptability (three-item patient questionnaire), and efficacy (quality of clinician communication) were evaluated.

RESULTS

From May 2021 through December 2022, a total of 12,233 questionnaires about illness/treatment understanding were sent to 6,325 patients (one to six per patient), with 97% response, including 9,358 with both open- and closed-ended responses. Fewer than 0.1% of patients indicated distress related to the questionnaire/process. Open-ended responses complemented closed-ended answers by revealing prognostic awareness and illness concerns. Of 48 patients approached to complete the full questionnaire including values items via portal, 15 first received and completed them in clinic (5 on iPad, 10 on paper), while 33 received and 27 (82%) completed the portal questionnaire. Patients found the portal process acceptable, and ratings of clinician communication were higher after clinic visits informed by patients' questionnaire responses (average prescore 6.8 v 5.9 post; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Almost all patients in this large GI cancer cohort responded via the portal about their understanding of illness and treatment goals. Eliciting their personal values by portal was also feasible, accepted by patients, and improved patient ratings of clinicians' communication. Portals represent a promising tool for scaling assessment of essential patient-reported elements of person-centered communication.

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

PURPOSE

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

DESIGN AND METHOD

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

FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

"I was never one of those people who just jumped right in for me": patient perspectives on self-advocacy training for women with advanced cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced cancer experience many complicated situations that can make self-advocacy (defined as the ability speak up for yourself in the face of a challenge) difficult. Few self-advocacy interventions exist, and most are atheoretical with minimal patient engagement. The purpose of this study is to describe participant perspectives of a novel, self-advocacy serious game intervention called Strong Together.

METHODS

This was a qualitative cross-sectional descriptive study among women receiving cancer care at an academic cancer center within 3 months of an advanced gynecologic or breast cancer diagnosis. Participants randomized to receive the intervention completed one-on-one semi-structured interviews 3-months post Strong Together and had the option to share voice journals about their experiences. Inductive qualitative approaches were used to descriptively analyze transcripts and voice journals. Descriptive content analysis approaches were used to group similar codes together into themes summarizing participants' experiences engaging with the Strong Together intervention.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 40) reported that the Strong Together intervention was acceptable, noting that it was realistic and reflective of their personal experiences. Overarching themes included seeing myself in most scenarios and wanting more content; giving me the go ahead to expect more; offering ideas for how to stand up for myself; reinforcing what I am already doing; and reminding me of what I have. Participants suggested adding additional content including diverse characters.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that women with advanced cancer were receptive to a self-advocacy skills-building intervention. Future research should explore the mechanisms linking serious games to learning and health outcomes.

Verification of the Mandarin Chinese version of Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey Scale in community-dwelling older people

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) has become increasingly critical for older people. The Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey (ACPES) develops targeted interventions for older people by measuring ACP-related behaviours, while previous studies focus only on advance directives. Moreover, while ACPES has English and Dutch versions, it does not yet have a Mandarin Chinese version (ACPES-MC) that can be used for Chinese populations.

OBJECTIVES

To translate the ACPES into Mandarin Chinese and test its reliability and validity in community-dwelling older people with chronic diseases.

METHODS

The English version of the ACPES was translated into Mandarin Chinese using Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy. Four communities were recruited in central China (N = 450) by convenience sampling. Internal consistency and construct validity were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the ACPES-MC.

RESULTS

The ACPES-MC consists of 34 items across five domains, with good internal consistency (0.817), with each dimension ranging from 0.606 to 0.881; exploratory factor analysis was distributed to four different factors and the total variance explained was 63.537%; and confirmatory factor analysis results showed that χ²  = 3791.131 (p < .001), χ² /df = 1.106, CFI = 0.980, IFI = 0.980, NFI = 0.827 and RMR = 0.027, indicating a good model fit to previous factor structures.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACPES-MC is an effective and reliable tool that can measure the ACP-related behaviour stage of community-dwelling older people and evaluate the effect of ACP intervention.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The ACPES-MC can be used in healthcare to identify potential ACP-related behaviours in community-dwelling older people with chronic diseases, including native and ethnic Chinese, evaluate their behaviour change stages and promote the application of ACP.

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

Objectives

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

Design

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020184080.

Accuracy of curability expectations in patients with gastrointestinal cancers

BACKGROUND

Assessment of illness and treatment understanding among cancer patients has largely focused on those with advanced disease. Less is known about patient expectations at earlier stages of cancer and potential modifiers of accurate understanding.

METHODS

We assessed accuracy of cure expectations in patients across all stages with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Accuracy was determined by independent reviews of patient health records by oncologists on the investigative team. Impact on cure accuracy of selected clinical variables and health-information preferences was analyzed.

RESULTS

Hundred and thirty five patients were included for analysis, with 100% interrater agreement for accuracy between oncologist reviewers. Sixety five patients (48%) had accurate cure expectations from their cancer treatment. Accuracy was lower in Stage IV versus Stage I-III disease (35% vs. 63%, p < 0.01), lower in unresectable versus resectable disease (35% vs. 67%, p < 0.01), and higher in patients with early-stage disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not (78% vs. 53%, p = 0.04). Accuracy did not differ by health-information preferences and remained stable over time. Of 63 patients who died, baseline accuracy differed by location of death (p = 0.03), with greater accuracy in those who died with home hospice (56%). Accuracy was lower in those who were hospitalized in the last 30 days of life versus those who were not (25% vs. 59%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Inaccurate cure expectations are prevalent across all stages of GI cancers, but particularly among those with metastatic or unresectable disease. High-quality, iterative communication strategies may facilitate patient illness and treatment understanding throughout the disease course.

Navigating a newly diagnosed cancer through clinician-facilitated discussions of health-related patient values: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning, the process through which patient values and goals are explored and documented, is a core quality indicator in cancer care. However, patient values are predominantly elicited at the end of life; patient values earlier in serious illness are not clearly delineated. The objective of this analysis is to assess the content of patient-verified summaries of health-related values among newly diagnosed cancer outpatients in order to develop a theoretical framework to guide future values discussions and optimize person-centered oncologic care.

METHODS

Values summaries among patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were extracted from the medical record. Modified grounded theory analysis included interdisciplinary team coding of values summaries to identify key domains; code categorization; and identification of thematic constructs during successive consensus meetings. A final round of coding stratified themes by disease type.

RESULTS

Analysis of 128 patient values summary documents from 67 patients (gastrointestinal [GI] cancers, n = 49; myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS], n = 18) generated 115 codes across 12 categories. Resultant themes demonstrated patients' focus on retaining agency, personhood and interpersonal connection amidst practical and existential disruption caused by cancer. Themes coalesced into a theoretical framework with 5 sequenced constructs beginning with the cancer diagnosis, leading to 3 nesting constructs of individual identity (character), interpersonal (communication) preferences and needs, and social identity (connection), signifying sources of meaning and fulfillment. Values differences between GI cancer and MDS patients-including greater focus on normalcy, prognosis, and maintaining professional life among GI patients-reflected the distinct therapeutic options and prognoses across these disease groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient values reflect goals of meaning-making and fulfillment through individual agency and interpersonal supports in the setting of a newly diagnosed cancer. Early, nurse-led values discussions provide important and patient-specific data that are informative and likely actionable by clinicians in the delivery of person-centered care. Values can also facilitate discussions between patients and families and clarify patient preferences.

Patient-caregiver dyads advance care plan value discussions: randomised controlled cancer trial of video decision support tool

OBJECTIVE

Uptake of advance care planning (ACP) in cancer remains low. An emphasis on personal value discussions and adoption of novel interventions may serve as the catalyst to increase engagement. This study examined the effectiveness of a video decision support tool (VDST) modelling values conversations in cancer ACP.

METHODS

This single site, open-label, randomised controlled trial allocated patient-caregiver dyads on a 1:1 ratio to VDST or usual care (UC). Previously used written vignettes were converted to video vignettes using standard methodology. We evaluated ACP document completion rates, understanding and perspectives on ACP, congruence in communication and preparation for decision-making.

RESULTS

Participants numbered 113 (60.4% response rate). The VDST did not improve overall ACP document completion (37.7% VDST; 36.7% UC). However, the VDST improved ACP document completion in older patients (≥70) compared with younger counterparts (<70) (OR=0.308, 95% CI 0.096 to 0.982, p=0.047), elicited greater distress in patients (p=0.015) and improved patients and caregivers ratings for opportunities to discuss ACP with health professionals. ACP improved concordance in communication (VDST p=0.006; UC p=0.045), more so with the VDST (effect size: VDST 0.7; UC 0.54). Concordance in communication also improved in both arms with age.

CONCLUSION

The VDST failed to improve ACP document completion rates but highlighted that exploring core patient values may improve concordance in patient-caregiver communication. Striving towards a more rigorous design of the VDST intervention, incorporating clinical outcome scenarios with values conversations may be the catalyst needed to progress ACP towards a more fulfilling process for those who partake in it.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001035910.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.

Purpose

To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.

Study Selection

We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.

Data Synthesis

Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ² = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ² = 6.08, P = 0.05).

Limitations

Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Development of the Oncolo-GIST ("Giving Information Strategically & Transparently") Intervention Manual for Oncologist Skills Training in Advanced Cancer Prognostic Information Communication

CONTEXT

Patient prognostic understanding is improved by oncologists' discussions of life expectancy. Most patients deem it important to discuss prognosis with their oncologists, but a minority of cancer patients within months of death report that they had such a discussion with their oncologist.

OBJECTIVES

To query stakeholders about their perspectives on the clinical approach and utility of an Oncolo-GIST manualized communication intervention, designed to enhance oncologists' ability to convey the gist of prognostic information simply, clearly, and effectively in the setting of progressing solid tumors and limited life expectancy.

METHODS

We obtained and analyzed feedback on the intervention from solid tumor oncology clinicians and bereaved family caregivers, soliciting opinions on the clinical approach taken in the videos, acceptability and likely impact of the instructions, and specific phrases recommended in the manual.

RESULTS

Twenty stakeholders (9 clinicians, 11 caregivers) participated. All agreed that oncologists should broach prognosis with patients, balancing honesty and sensitivity. Participants also advocated for oncologists to involve interprofessional team members (e.g., nurses, social workers) when serious mental health concerns arose. After the research team's discussion of the stakeholder feedback, the manual was modified to include or exclude preferred language and approaches.

CONCLUSION

The Oncolo-GIST intervention was characterized as simple and potentially effective at conveying prognoses to advanced cancer patients. Future research should determine if this approach to medical communication, which distills the essence of prognostic messages clearly and simply, is associated with improvements in patients' prognostic understanding.

Video decision support tool promoting values conversations in advanced care planning in cancer: protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Views on advance care planning (ACP) has shifted from a focus solely on treatment decisions at the end-of-life and medically orientated advanced directives to encouraging conversations on personal values and life goals, patient-caregiver communication and decision making, and family preparation. This study will evaluate the potential utility of a video decision support tool (VDST) that models values-based ACP discussions between cancer patients and their nominated caregivers to enable patients and families to achieve shared-decisions when completing ACP’s.

Methods

This open-label, parallel-arm, phase II randomised control trial will recruit cancer patient-caregiver dyads across a large health network. Previously used written vignettes will be converted to video vignettes using the recommended methodology. Participants will be ≥18 years and be able to complete questionnaires. Dyads will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a usual care (UC) or VDST group. The VDST group will watch a video of several patient-caregiver dyads communicating personal values across different cancer trajectory stages and will receive verbal and written ACP information. The UC group will receive verbal and written ACP information. Patient and caregiver data will be collected individually via an anonymous questionnaire developed for the study, pre and post the UC and VDST intervention.

Our primary outcome will be ACP completion rates. Secondarily, we will compare patient-caregiver (i) attitudes towards ACP, (ii) congruence in communication, and (iii) preparation for decision-making.

Conclusion

We need to continue to explore innovative ways to engage cancer patients in ACP. This study will be the first VDST study to attempt to integrate values-based conversations into an ACP intervention. This pilot study’s findings will assist with further refinement of the VDST and planning for a future multisite study.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry No: ACTRN12620001035910. Registered 12 October 2020. Retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00794-3.

The PREPARE for Your Care program increases advance care planning engagement among diverse older adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) is low among older adults with cancer. In a secondary analysis of randomized trial data, the authors compared the efficacy of the PREPARE for Your Care (PREPARE) website plus an easy-to-read advance directive (AD) with an AD only among older adults with and without cancer.

METHODS

Safety net, primary care patients in San Francisco were included if they were 55 years old or older, were English- or Spanish-speaking, and had 2 or more chronic conditions. The authors determined cancer diagnoses by using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision/Tenth Revision codes. The primary outcome was new ACP documentation in the medical record at 15 months; the secondary outcomes were self-reported ACP engagement, ease of use, satisfaction, and depression/anxiety. The authors used mixed effects logistic and linear regression adjusted for prior ACP, health literacy, and clinician, including a cancer interaction term.

RESULTS

Of 986 participants, 220 (22%) had cancer. The mean age was 63 years (SD, 6 years), 61% were women, 81% were of a minority race/ethnicity, 45% were Spanish-speaking, 39% had limited health literacy, and 27% had prior ACP. New ACP documentation was higher in the PREPARE arm versus the AD-only arm among participants with cancer (62% vs 43%; P = .01) and without cancer (38% vs 28%; P = .01), as was ACP engagement in both arms (P < .001), with no interactions by cancer. Ease of use and satisfaction were high, and depression/anxiety was low, with no differences by study arm or by cancer/no cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

PREPARE plus an easy-to-read AD increased ACP documentation and engagement among diverse older adults with cancer more than an AD alone, with no increase in depression or anxiety between study arms or by cancer. PREPARE may help to decrease ACP disparities among patients with cancer.

LAY SUMMARY

Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of sharing values, goals, and preferences for medical care, but engagement in ACP is low among older adults with cancer. Among 986 English- and Spanish-speaking older adults from a safety net hospital, an interactive, multimedia, web-based ACP program (PREPARE for Your Care at https://prepareforyourcare.org/) plus an easy-to-read advance directive increased ACP documentation and engagement more than an advance directive alone. There were no differences in this increase in ACP between older adults with cancer and older adults without cancer. Also, engaging in ACP did not result in increased depression or anxiety.

Communication Interventions to Improve Goal-Concordant Care of Seriously Ill Patients: An Integrative Review

Effective communication between clinicians and seriously ill patients and their families about a patient's goals of care is essential to patient-centered, goal-concordant, end-of-life care. Effective goals-of-care communication between clinicians and patients is associated with improved patient and family outcomes, increased clinician satisfaction, and decreased health care costs. Unfortunately, clinicians often face barriers in goals-of-care communication and collaboration, including a lack of education, time constraints, and no standardized protocols. Without clear goals-of-care communication, patients may not be able to provide guidance to clinicians about their end-of-life preferences. The purpose of this integrative review was to examine the efficacy of goals-of-care communication interventions between patients, families, and clinicians in randomized controlled trials published between 2009 and 2018. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria with an overall sample (N = 6376) of patients, family members, and clinicians. Results revealed of the 6 different intervention modes, patient decision aids and patient-clinician communication consistently increased comprehension and communication. Twelve of the studies had nurses facilitate or support the communication intervention. Because nurses are a critical, trusted nexus for communication about end-of-life care, focusing on nurse interventions may significantly improve clinical outcomes and the patient experience.

Advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer: A 6-country, cluster-randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

To test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015-2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0-3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients' age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients' quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score -1.8 versus -0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the intervention group. A key limitation of the study is that recruitment rates were lower in intervention than in control hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who received usual care. The increased use of specialist palliative care and AD inclusion in hospital files of intervention patients is meaningful and requires further study. Our findings suggest that alternative approaches to support patient-centred end-of-life care in this population are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN63110516.

A mixed methods analysis of patients' advance care planning values in outpatient oncology: Person-Centered Oncologic Care and Choices (P-COCC)

PURPOSE

Person-Centered Oncologic Care and Choices (P-COCC) combines an advance care planning (ACP) value-focused patient interview with a care goal video decision aid. Our randomized study showed that P-COCC was acceptable but increased participant distress, compared with video-alone and usual care study arms. This mixed methods approach explores the ACP values in the P-COCC arm and their relationship to the distress phenomenon.

METHODS

Qualitative thematic analysis of the 46 audio-recorded P-COCC interview transcripts with advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients was performed by multiple reviewers. Quantitative (Likert scale) changes in ACP values were compared across study arms. ACP themes and value change were analyzed in participants with increased distress.

RESULTS

Transcript analysis resulted in thematic saturation and identified eight distinct themes on ACP values relating to end-of-life wishes, communication needs, and psychosocial supports. Of 98 participants (33 P-COCC, 43 videos, 22 usual care) who completed the change in value measure, there was no difference detected with P-COCC compared with either video (p = 0.052) or usual care (p = 0.105) arms alone, but P-COCC led to a frequency distribution of more change in personal values compared with the other study arms combined (p = 0.043). Among the subset of P-COCC participants with increased distress, there was no statistical relationship with change in values.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACP paradigm P-COCC both informs and supports patients in individualized, value-based decision-making. Distress is not associated with changes in ACP values and may be a necessary, at least transient, byproduct of discussing sensitive but pertinent topics about end-of-life medical care.

Giving Voice to Patient Values Throughout Cancer: A Novel Nurse-Led Intervention

CONTEXT

Optimal advance care planning allows patients to articulate their values as a touchstone for medical decision making. Ideally, this occurs when patients are clinically stable, and with opportunities for iteration as the clinical situation unfolds.

OBJECTIVES

Testing feasibility and acceptability in busy outpatient oncology clinics of a novel program of systematic, oncology nurse-led values discussions with all new cancer patients.

METHODS

Within an institutional initiative integrating primary and specialist palliative care from diagnosis for all cancer patients, oncology nurses were trained to use specific questions and an empathic communication framework to discuss health-related values during outpatient clinic visits. Nurses summarized discussions on a template for patient verification, oncologist review, and electronic medical record documentation. Summaries were reviewed with the patient at least quarterly. Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated in three clinics for patients with hematologic or gastrointestinal malignancies.

RESULTS

Oncology nurses conducted 177 total discussions with 67 newly diagnosed cancer patients (17 with hematologic and 50 with gastrointestinal malignancies) over two years. No patient declined participation. Discussions averaged eight minutes, and all patients verified values summaries. Clinic patient volume was maintained. Of 31 patients surveyed, 30 (97%) reported feeling comfortable with the process, considered it helpful, and would recommend it to others. Clinicians strongly endorsed the values discussion process.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-led discussions of patient values soon after diagnosis are feasible and acceptable in busy oncology clinics. Further research will evaluate the impact of this novel approach on additional patient-oriented outcomes after broader dissemination of this initiative throughout our institution.

A Systematic Review and Gap Analysis of Advance Care Planning Intervention Components and Outcomes Among Cancer Patients Using the Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change

CONTEXT

Despite the benefits of advance care planning (ACP), cancer patients rarely engage in ACP. ACP is a process that parallels health behavior change. This makes the Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change (TTM) an important framework for understanding how to increase ACP among cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically review ACP interventions for cancer patients by 1) categorizing ACP intervention components according to the stages and processes of behavior change in the TTM, 2) conducting a gap analysis among the categorized components, and 3) identifying patterns between the categorized intervention components and the intervention outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles related to ACP and cancer. ACP intervention components were abstracted, assessed for theoretical relevance, organized according to the stages and process of change in the TTM, and then synthesized.

RESULTS

The search produced 4604 articles, with 25 meeting criteria for review. Most intervention components targeted the precontemplation and contemplation stages of change, with fewer targeting preparation, action, or maintenance. Multiple processes of change were not addressed. Interventions that resulted in ACP engagement tended to take an interdisciplinary approach to implementation and consisted of multiple consultations staged over time.

CONCLUSION

ACP likely requires "high touch" interventions to induce behavior change. ACP interventions that are stage-matched, use diverse mechanisms to engage ACP (i.e., processes of change), address ACP as a process, and monitor engagement across the illness trajectory are needed for cancers patients and their caregivers.