A stakeholder-driven approach to improve the informed consent process for palliative chemotherapy

Codesign Use in Palliative Care Intervention Development: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Codesign is a methodology that includes active collaboration between stakeholders in designing solutions and has been used in the development and implementation of palliative care (PC) interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize the state of evidence for codesign in the development of PC interventions.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for peer-reviewed studies published after 1995 that reported evidence of codesigned interventions and outcomes in patients receiving palliative, hospice, or end-of-life care. We screened studies through independent and blinded dual review within Covidence and assessed study quality with the 2018 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We narratively synthesized codesign duration, engagement approach, stakeholders involved, intervention designs, follow-ups, and outcomes, comparing among codesigns reporting meaningful improvement in outcomes. We created a best practice checklist which we used to evaluate codesign use in each study.

RESULTS

About 1,036 abstracts and 54 full text articles were screened. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria and were abstracted. Feedback collection modalities ranged from iterative drafting, pilot testing, advisory panels, workshops, focus groups, and interviews. Thirteen studies applied pretesting/prototyping through pretest post-test, focus groups, prototypes, alpha and beta testing, and mock-ups. Eleven studies reported improved outcomes, eight of which utilized iterative codesign. All the studies reporting improved outcomes mentioned meeting with stakeholders at least twice. Two studies met all criteria in our codesign best practice checklist.

CONCLUSION

Codesigned PC interventions demonstrate high variance in the modality of acquiring feedback and application of codesign. Successful codesign leading to improvement in outcomes is achieved by involving patients, caregivers, and providers in iterating intervention design.

What Are the Best Practices for Co-Creating Patient-Facing Educational Materials? A Scoping Review of the Literature

Co-creating patient-facing educational materials (PEMs) can enhance person-centered care by responding to patient priorities and unmet needs. Little data exist on 'best practices' for co-creation. We followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework to conduct a systematic literature search of nine databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, TRIP-April, 2022) to identify empirical studies published in English on PEM co-creation to distill 'best practices'. Following an independent dual review of articles, data were collated into tables, and thematic analysis was employed to synthesize 'best practices' that were validated by a patient experienced in co-creating PEMs. Bias was not assessed, given the study heterogeneity. Of 6998 retrieved articles, 44 were included for data extraction/synthesis. Studies utilized heterogeneous methods spanning a range of health conditions/populations. Only 5/45 (11%) studies defined co-creation, 14 (32%) used a guiding framework, and 18 (41%) used validated evaluation tools. Six 'best practices' were identified: (1) begin with a review of the literature, (2) utilize a framework to inform the process, (3) involve clinical and patient experts from the beginning, (4) engage diverse perspectives, (5) ensure patients have the final decision, and (6) employ validated evaluation tools. This scoping review highlights the need for clear definitions and validated evaluation measures to guide and assess the co-creation process. Identified 'best practices' are relevant for use with diverse patient populations and health issues to enhance person-centered care.

Adaptation of a Multimedia Chemotherapy Educational Intervention for Latinos: Letting Patient Narratives Speak for Themselves

This study aims to adapt a video-based, multimedia chemotherapy educational intervention to meet the needs of US Latinos with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. A five-step hybrid adaptation process involved (1) creating a multidisciplinary team with diverse Latino subject experts, (2) appraising the parent intervention, (3) identifying key cultural considerations from a systematic literature review and semi-structured Latino patient/caregiver interviews, (4) revising the intervention, highlighting culturally relevant themes through video interviews with Latino cancer patients, and (5) target population review with responsive revisions. We developed a suite of videos, booklets, and websites available in English and Spanish, which convey the risks and benefits of common chemotherapy regimens. After revising the English materials, we translated them into Spanish using a multi-step process. The intervention centers upon conversations with 12 Latino patients about their treatment experiences; video clips highlight culturally relevant themes (personalismo, familismo, faith, communication gaps, prognostic information preferences) identified during the third adaptation step. The adapted intervention materials included a new section on coping, and one titled "how to feel the best you can feel," which reviews principles of side effect management, self-advocacy, proactive communication, and palliative care. Ten Latinos with advanced malignancies reviewed the intervention and found it to be easily understandable, relatable, and helpful. A five-step hybrid model was successful in adapting a chemotherapy educational intervention for Latinos. Incorporation of video interviews with Latino patients enabled the authentic representation of salient cultural themes. Use of authentic patient narratives can be useful for cross-cultural intervention adaptations.

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Towards conceptualizing patients as partners in health systems: a systematic review and descriptive synthesis

BACKGROUND

With the sharp increase in the involvement of patients (including family and informal caregivers) as active participants, collaborators, advisors and decision-makers in health systems, a new role has emerged: the patient partner. The role of patient partner differs from other forms of patient engagement in its longitudinal and bidirectional nature. This systematic review describes extant work on how patient partners are conceptualized and engaged in health systems. In doing so, it furthers the understanding of the role and activities of patient partners, and best practices for future patient partnership activities.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature published in English or French that describes patient partner roles between 2000 and 2021 in any country or sector of the health system. We used a broad search strategy to capture descriptions of longitudinal patient engagement that may not have used words such as "partner" or "advisor".

RESULTS

A total of 506 eligible papers were identified, representing patient partnership activities in mostly high-income countries. These studies overwhelmingly described patient partnership in health research. We identified clusters of literature about patient partnership in cancer and mental health. The literature is saturated with single-site descriptive studies of patient partnership on individual projects or initiatives. There is a lack of work synthesizing impacts, facilitating factors and outcomes of patient partnership in healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

There is not yet a consolidated understanding of the role, activities or impacts of patient partners. Advancement of the literature has been stymied by a lack of consistently used terminology. The literature is ready to move beyond single-site descriptions, and synthesis of existing pockets of high-quality theoretical work will be essential to this evolution.

Age Differences in Clinical Trial Understanding in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are often an important component of cancer care but are misunderstood by many patients. Few studies have examined age differences in clinical trial understanding in older versus younger adults, especially among patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a slowly progressive and not typically curable cancer diagnosed primarily in older adults.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants aged ≥21 years with a diagnosis of NHL were recruited from a single academic medical center in an urban setting. Age was dichotomized as <65 and ≥65 years. Clinical trial understanding was assessed using a four-item survey of potential goals of a clinical trial, with responses including "yes," "no," and "I don't know." Survey responses were examined by age using Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

The sample was comprised of 74 patients who were predominantly non-Latino White, with a mean age of 60.4 years (SD = 12.27). Compared to younger patients, older patients were more likely to respond "I don't know" to the clinical trial goals of reducing the lymphoma (41.4% vs. 13.3%; P = .023) and keeping the lymphoma from worsening (41.4% vs. 13.3%; P = .017). Age differences for the remaining goals were not statistically significant. Similar findings emerged when the sample was restricted to patients under active surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Relative to younger adults, older adults may have a less nuanced understanding of clinical trial goals. Therefore, older adults may benefit from developmentally-tailored interventions to improve clinical trial understanding. Future research should examine the relationship between clinical trial understanding and enrollment by age using validated measures in diverse samples.

Effectiveness of a Multimedia Educational Intervention to Improve Understanding of the Risks and Benefits of Palliative Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Despite requirements of informed consent, patients with advanced cancer often receive palliative chemotherapy (PC) without understanding that the likelihood of cure is remote.

Objective

To determine whether a PC educational video and booklet at treatment initiation could improve patients' understanding of its benefits and risks.

Interventions

Regimen-specific PC videos and booklets presenting information about logistics, potential benefits, life expectancy (optional), adverse effects, and alternatives. Videos featured authentic patients sharing diverse experiences. After receiving treatment recommendations, research assistants distributed materials to patients for independent review.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients with advanced colorectal or pancreatic cancer starting first-line or second-line PC in 5 US cancer centers with enrollment from June 2015 to September 2017 and follow-up to December 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was accurate expectations of chemotherapy benefits at 3 months, defined as responding "not at all likely" to "What is your understanding of how likely the chemotherapy is to cure your cancer?" (from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance study). Secondary outcomes included understanding of adverse effects, decisional conflict (SURE test), regret (Decisional Regret Scale), and distress (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General emotional well-being subscale).

Results

Among 186 patients with advanced colorectal or pancreatic cancer who were starting first-line or second-line PC (94 randomized to usual care, 92 to intervention; mean [SD] age, 59.3 [12.6] [range, 28-86] years; 107 [58%] male; 118 [63.4%] colorectal and 68 [36.6%] pancreatic cancer), most patients wanted "a lot" of information or "as much information as possible" about adverse effects (149, 80.1%), likelihood of cure (148, 79.6%), and prognosis (148, 79.6%). Among the intervention arm, 59 (78%) reviewed the booklet and 30 (40%) reviewed the video within 2 weeks. The primary outcome did not differ between intervention and control arms (52.6%; 95% CI, 40.3%-65.0%; vs 55.5%; 95% CI, 45.1%-66.0%). Accurate adverse effect understanding was more common among intervention than control patients (56.0%; 95% CI, 44.3%-67.7%; vs 40.2%; 95% CI, 29.5%-50.9%; P = .05), although this did not meet the threshold for statistical significance. The intervention did not increase distress, despite frank prognostic information. Other secondary outcomes were similar.

Conclusions and Relevance

Provision of an educational video and booklet did not alter patients' expectation of cure from PC. Alternative delivery strategies, such as integration with nurse teaching, could be explored in future studies.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02282722.

The Effect of Disclosing Life Expectancy Information on Patients' Prognostic Understanding: Secondary Outcomes From a Multicenter Randomized Trial of a Palliative Chemotherapy Educational Intervention

CONTEXT

Many advanced patients with cancer have unrealistic prognostic expectations.

OBJECTIVES

We tested whether offering life expectancy (LE) statistics within palliative chemotherapy (PC) education promotes realistic expectations.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, patients with advanced colorectal and pancreatic cancers initiating first or second line PC were randomized to usual care versus a PC educational tool with optional LE information. Surveys at two weeks and three months assessed patients' review of the LE module and their reactions; at three months, patients estimated their LE and reported occurrence of prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) discussions. Wilcoxon tests and proportional odds models evaluated between-arm differences in LE self-estimates, and how realistic those estimates were (based on cancer type and line of treatment).

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2017, 92 patients were randomized to the intervention and 94 to usual care. At baseline most patients (80.9%) wanted "a lot" or "as much information as possible" about the impact of chemotherapy on LE. Among patients randomized to the intervention, 52.0% reviewed the LE module by two weeks and 66.7% by three months-of whom 88.2% reported the information was important, 31.4% reported it was upsetting, and 3.9% regretted reviewing it. Overall, patients' LE self-estimates were very optimistic; 71.4% of patients with colorectal cancer estimated greater than five years; 50% pancreatic patients estimated greater than two years. The intervention had no effect on the length or realism of patients' LE self-estimates, or on the occurrence of prognostic or EOL discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering LE information within a PC educational intervention had no effect on patients' prognostic expectations.

Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care

Background

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has engaged an External Stakeholder Advisory Group (ESAG) in the planning and implementation of the TrACER Study (S1415CD), a five-year pragmatic clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of a guideline-based colony stimulating factor standing order intervention. The trial is being conducted by SWOG through the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program in 45 clinics. The ESAG includes ten patient partners, two payers, two pharmacists, two guideline experts, four providers and one medical ethicist. This manuscript describes the ESAG’s role and impact on the trial.

Methods

During early trial development, the research team assembled the ESAG to inform plans for each phase of the trial. ESAG members provide feedback and engage in problem solving to improve trial implementation. Each year, members participate in one in-person meeting, web conferences and targeted email discussion. Additionally, they complete a survey that assesses their satisfaction with communication and collaboration. The research team collected and reviewed stakeholder input from 2014 to 2018 for impact on the trial.

Results

The ESAG has informed trial design, implementation and dissemination planning. The group advised the trial’s endpoints, regimen list and development of cohort and usual care arms. Based on ESAG input, the research team enhanced patient surveys and added pharmacy-related questions to the component application to assess order entry systems. ESAG patient partners collaborated with the research team to develop a patient brochure and study summary for clinic staff. In addition to identifying recruitment strategies and patient-oriented platforms for publicly sharing results, ESAG members participated as co-authors on this manuscript and a conference poster presentation highlighting stakeholder influence on the trial. The annual satisfaction survey results suggest that ESAG members were satisfied with the methods, frequency and target areas of their engagement in the trial during project years 1–3.

Conclusions

Diverse stakeholder engagement has been essential in optimizing the design, implementation and planned dissemination of the TrACER Study. The lessons described in the manuscript may assist others to effectively partner with stakeholders on clinical research.

Availability and effectiveness of decision aids for supporting shared decision making in patients with advanced colorectal and lung cancer: Results from a systematic review

Introduction

Shared decision making is not always commonplace in advanced colorectal or lung cancer care. Decision aids (DAs) might be helpful. This review aimed (a) to provide an overview of DAs for patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer and assess their availability; and (b) to assess their effectiveness if possible.

Methods

A systematic literature search (PubMed/EMBASE/PsycINFO/CINAHL) and Internet and expert searches were carried out to identify relevant DAs. Data from the DAs included were extracted and the quality of studies, evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and effectiveness (International Patient Decision Aid Standards) of DAs were determined.

Results

Ten of the 12 DAs included (four colorectal cancer, four lung cancer and four generic) are still available. Most (9/12) were applicable throughout the disease pathway and usable for all decisions, or to the decision for supportive care with/without anti‐cancer therapy. Seven studies tested effectiveness. Effects on patient outcomes varied, but were generally weakly positive (e.g., DAs improved patient satisfaction) with low evidence. Study quality was fair to good.

Conclusion

There is a lack of readily available DAs that have been demonstrated to be effective in advanced colorectal or lung cancer. Rigorous testing of the effects of currently available and future DAs, to improve patient outcomes, is urgently needed.

Parent understanding of the risk of future limitations secondary to pediatric cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Parents and physicians may have different understandings of a child's risk of future limitations due to cancer or cancer treatment. We evaluated alignment between parent- and physician-estimated risk of late effects.

METHODS

We surveyed 352 parents of children with cancer within 12 weeks of diagnosis, and the children's oncologists, at Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. We assessed parent and physician estimations of the child's risk of future limitations in physical abilities, intelligence, or quality of life (QOL) due to cancer treatment. Physician-estimated risk of limitations ≥50% was considered high risk.

RESULTS

Physicians considered 22% of children at high risk of physical impairments, 9% at high risk for impaired intelligence, and 6% at high risk for impaired QOL. Among high-risk children, 38% of parents recognized this risk in physical abilities, 21% in intelligence, and 5% in QOL. In multivariable analysis, parental understanding of risk, defined as concordant parent and physician estimates, was greater among parents of children at lower risk of future limitations (odds ratio 2.59; 95% confidence interval 1.35-4.96). Regardless of risk, 92% of parents considered it very/extremely important to receive information about potential health implications of cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most parents want information about life after cancer, most parents of children at high risk of future impairment do not recognize this risk. Strategies to improve communication about late effects throughout pediatric cancer treatment should prioritize meeting information needs and improving parent understanding of the risk of impairment.

Coordination of the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes program: so the whole is greater than the sum of its parts

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program's mission is to enhance the health of children for generations to come. In this manuscript, we describe the structure of the ECHO Coordinating Center (ECHO-CC) and its role in developing the infrastructure for the ECHO program.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ECHO-CC supports ECHO's mission by developing the framework of the ECHO program, coordinating multiple levels of membership in the ECHO community, developing ECHO policies and procedures, and fostering communication and engagement inside and outside of ECHO.

SUMMARY

The ECHO-CC has used a number of innovative methods for organization, communication, and engagement to enable the ECHO program to become greater than the sum of its parts.