Patient-Provider Communication, Decision-Making, and Psychosocial Burdens in Palliative Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study on Patients' Perspectives

Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care: A systematic review and metasynthesis

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is a key element of person-centred care and promoted as the favoured model in preference-sensitive decision-making. Limitations to implementation have been observed, and barriers and limitations, both generally and in the palliative setting, have been highlighted. More knowledge about the process of shared decision-making in palliative cancer care would assist in addressing these limitations.

AIM

To identify and synthesise qualitative data on how people with cancer, informal carers and healthcare professionals experience and perceive shared decision-making in palliative cancer care.

DESIGN

A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. We analysed data using inductive thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus) from inception until June 2023, supplemented by backward searches.

RESULTS

We identified and included 23 studies, reported in 26 papers. Our analysis produced four analytical themes; (1) Overwhelming situation of 'no choice', (2) Processes vary depending on the timings and nature of the decisions involved, (3) Patient-physician dyad is central to decision-making, with surrounding support and (4) Level of involvement depends on interactions between individuals and systems.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care is a complex process of many decisions in a challenging, multifaceted and evolving situation where equipoise and choice are limited. Implications for practice: Implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice requires (1) clarifying conceptual confusion, (2) including members of the interprofessional team in the shared decision-making process and (3) adapting the approach to the ambiguous, existential situations which arise in palliative cancer care.

Patient Education Practices and Preferences of Radiation Oncologists and Interprofessional Radiation Therapy Care Teams: A Mixed-Methods Study Exploring Strategies for Effective Patient Education Delivery

PURPOSE

Patients' understanding of radiation therapy (RT) and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. We aimed to evaluate PE practices of radiation oncologists and interprofessional RT care team members to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive and accessible PE.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An anonymous survey was administered to all Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members (10/5/22-11/23/22). Respondent demographics, individual practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. The Fisher exact test compared PE practices by respondent role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members completed the survey (28.2% response rate); RO attendings comprised 68.1% of respondents. Most practiced in an academic setting (85.8%) in North America (80.5%). Institution-specific materials were the most common PE resource used by radiation oncologists (67.6%). Almost half (40.2%) reported that their PE practices differed based on clinical encounter type, with paper handouts commonly used for in-person and multimedia for telehealth visits. Only 57.7% reported access to non-English PE materials. PE practices among radiation oncologists differed according to RT clinical workflow timing (consultation versus simulation versus first RT, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 88.5% versus 49.4% versus 56.3%, P < .01, and paper handouts: 69.0% versus 28.7% versus 16.1%, P < .01. Identified challenges for PE delivery included limited time, administrative barriers to the development or implementation of new materials or practices, and a lack of customized resources for tailored PE. Effective strategies for PE included utilization of visual diagrams, multimedia, and innovative education techniques to personalize PE delivery/resources for a diverse patient population, as well as fostering interprofessional collaboration to reinforce educational content.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation oncologists and interprofessional RO team members engage in PE, with most using institution-specific materials often available only in English. PE practices differ according to clinical encounter type and RT workflow timing. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery.

Quality of life issues in patients with bone metastases: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Bones are frequent sites of metastatic disease, observed in 30-75% of advanced cancer patients. Quality of life (QoL) is an important endpoint in studies evaluating the treatments of bone metastases (BM), and many patient-reported outcome tools are available. The primary objective of this systematic review was to compile a list of QoL issues relevant to BM and its interventions. The secondary objective was to identify common tools used to assess QoL in patients with BM, and the QoL issues they fail to address.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases between 1946 and 27 January 2023 with the keywords "bone metastases", "quality of life", and "patient reported outcomes". Specific QoL issues in original research studies and the QoL tools used were extracted.

RESULTS

The review identified the QoL issues most prevalent to BM in the literature. Physical and functional issues observed in patients included pain, interference with ambulation and daily activities, and fatigue. Psychological symptoms, such as helplessness, depression, and anxiety were also common. These issues interfered with patients' relationships and social activities. Items not mentioned in existing QoL tools were related to newer treatments of BM, such as pain flare, flu-like symptoms, and jaw pain due to osteonecrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights that QoL issues for patients with BM have expanded over time due to advances in BM-directed treatments. If they are relevant, additional treatment-related QoL issues identified need to be validated prospectively by patients and added to current assessment tools.

Effective communication in palliative care from the perspectives of patients and relatives: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

In palliative care, effective communication is essential to adequately meet the needs and preferences of patients and their relatives. Effective communication includes exchanging information, facilitates shared decision-making, and promotes an empathic care relationship. We explored the perspectives of patients with an advanced illness and their relatives on effective communication with health-care professionals.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane for original empirical studies published between January 1, 2015 and March 4, 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 56 articles on 53 unique studies were included. We found 7 themes that from the perspectives of patients and relatives contribute to effective communication: (1) open and honest information. However, this open and honest communication can also trigger anxiety, stress, and existential disruption. Patients and relatives also indicated that they preferred (2) health-care professionals aligning to the patient's and relative's process of uptake and coping with information; (3) empathy; (4) clear and understandable language; (5) leaving room for positive coping strategies, (6) committed health-care professionals taking responsibility; and (7) recognition of relatives in their role as caregiver. Most studies in this review concerned communication with physicians in a hospital setting.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Most patients and relatives appreciate health-care professionals to not only pay attention to strictly medical issues but also to who they are as a person and the process they are going through. More research is needed on effective communication by nurses, in nonhospital settings and on communication by health-care professionals specialized in palliative care.

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

Prognostic Understanding and Goals of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study

CONTEXT

There is a paucity of data describing patients' expectations of goals of palliative radiotherapy (RT) and overall prognosis.

OBJECTIVES

To explore patients' perceptions of and preferences for communication surrounding goals of palliative RT and cancer prognosis.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews with seventeen patients with either bone or lung metastases receiving their first course of palliative RT at a comprehensive cancer center. All patient interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Themes of goals of palliative RT centered on either restoration, such as through improving quality of life or minimizing pain, or on a desire to combat cancer by eliminating tumor. While most patients perceived that palliative RT would palliate symptoms but not cure their cancer, some patients believed that the goal of palliative RT was to cure. Themes that emerged surrounding patients' understanding of prognosis and what lies ahead included uncertainty and apprehension about the future, a focus on additional treatment, and confronting mortality. Most patients preferred to receive information about goals of treatment and prognosis from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, rather than other members of the medical team. Patients also expressed a desire for written patient education materials on palliative RT.

CONCLUSION

Unclear perceptions of goals of treatment and prognosis may motivate some patients to pursue unnecessarily aggressive cancer treatments. Patients desire prognostic information from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, who are important contributors to goals of care discussions and may improve patient understanding and well-being by using restorative rather than combat-oriented language.

A Patient-Specific Fracture Risk Assessment Tool for Femoral Bone Metastases: Using the Bone Strength (BOS) Score in Clinical Practice

Patients with femoral metastases are at risk of fracturing bones. It is important to prevent fractures in order to maintain mobility and quality of life. The BOne Strength (BOS) score is based on a computed tomography (CT)-based patient-specific finite element (FE) computer model that objectively calculates bone strength. In this pilot study, the added clinical value of the BOS score towards treatment-related decision making was assessed. In December 2019, the BOS score was implemented in four radiotherapy centers. The BOS scores and fracture risks of individual patients were calculated and returned to the physician to assist in treatment decisions. The physicians filled out a questionnaire, which was qualitatively analyzed. A follow-up to identify fractures and/or death was performed after six months. Until June 2021, 42 BOS scores were delivered (20 high, 9 moderate, and 13 low fracture risk). In 48%, the BOS score led to an adaptation of treatment plans. Physicians indicated that the BOS score provided objective insight into fracture risk, was reassuring for physicians and patients, and improved multidisciplinary discussions and shared decision making. In conclusion, the BOS score is an objective tool to assess fracture risk in femoral bone metastases and aids physicians and patients in making a more informed decision regarding the most appropriate treatment.