Outcome measures for palliative care research

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Designing a Clinical Trial in Palliative Care

The palliative care field is experiencing substantive growth in clinical trial-based research. Randomized controlled trials provide the necessary rigor and conditions for assessing a treatment's efficacy in a controlled population. It is therefore important that a trial is meticulously designed from the outset to ensure the integrity of the ultimate results. In this article, our team discusses ten tips on clinical trial design drawn from collective experiences in the field. These ten tips cover a range of topics that can prove challenging in trial design, from developing initial methodologies to planning sample size and powering the trial, as well as collaboratively navigating the ethical issues of trial initiation and implementation as a cohesive team. We aim to help new researchers design sound trials and continue to grow the evidence base for our specialty. The guidance provided here can be used independently or in addition to the ten tips provided by this team in a separate article focused on what palliative care clinicians should know about interpreting a clinical trial.

Methodological challenges in conducting instrumentation research in non-communicative palliative care patients

Well-designed, rigorously implemented instrumentation studies are essential to develop valid, reliable pain assessment tools in non-communicative (non-self-reporting) palliative care patients. When conducting a pain instrumentation study, a research team identified methodologic challenges surrounding informed consent, eligibility criteria, acute pain operational definitions, patient recruitment, missing data, and study-related training during a run-in phase at the beginning of the project and during the conduct of the study. The team dealt with these challenges through identifying root causes, implementing remedial measures, and collecting data to demonstrate improvement or resolution. Effective strategies included obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for a waiver of informed consent, modifying eligibility criteria, ensuring that operational definitions and study procedures were consistent with clinical practice, decreasing time from screening to data collection to improve recruitment, increasing study nurse staffing by re-budgeting grant funds, focusing time and resources on high accruing clinical units, revising processes to minimize missing data, and developing detailed training for users of the instrument. With these multi-pronged solutions, the team exceeded the patient accrual target by 25% within the funding period and reduced missing data. While pain instrumentation studies in non-communicative patients have similar challenges to other palliative care studies, some of the solutions may be unique and several are applicable to other palliative care studies, particularly instrumentation research. The team's experience may also be useful for funders and IRBs.

Palliative Care for Patients and Families With Parkinson's Disease

Parkinson's disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease worldwide. There is widespread consensus that Parkinson patients, their carers, and clinicians involved in their care would benefit from a fully integrated, need-based provision of palliative care. However, the concept of palliative care in Parkinson's disease is still poorly defined and, consequently, poorly implemented into daily clinical practice. A particular challenge is the gradually progressive nature of Parkinson's disease-with insidiously increasing disability-making it challenging to clearly define the onset of palliative care needs for Parkinson patients. As people with Parkinson's disease are now living longer than in the past, future research needs to develop a more robust evidence-based approach to clarify the disease events associated with increased palliative care needs, and to examine these, prospectively, in an integrated palliative care service. The modern palliative care outlook, termed "simultaneous care,",is no longer restricted to the final stage of disease. It involves incorporating a continuity of care, effective management of the chronic-palliative interface, and a multidisciplinary network of professionals working both in the community and in specialized clinics, with active involvement of caregivers. Although promising, there is still a need to demonstrate the effectiveness of palliative care for patients with Parkinson's disease.

Clinical trials in palliative care: a systematic review of their methodological characteristics and of the quality of their reporting

Background

Over the past decades there has been a significant increase in the number of published clinical trials in palliative care. However, empirical evidence suggests that there are methodological problems in the design and conduct of studies, which raises questions about the validity and generalisability of the results and of the strength of the available evidence. We sought to evaluate the methodological characteristics and assess the quality of reporting of clinical trials in palliative care.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of published clinical trials assessing therapeutic interventions in palliative care. Trials were identified using MEDLINE (from its inception to February 2015). We assessed methodological characteristics and describe the quality of reporting using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results

We retrieved 107 studies. The most common medical field studied was oncology, and 43.9% of trials evaluated pharmacological interventions. Symptom control and physical dimensions (e.g. intervention on pain, breathlessness, nausea) were the palliative care-specific issues most studied. We found under-reporting of key information in particular on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding.

Conclusions

While the number of clinical trials in palliative care has increased over time, methodological quality remains suboptimal. This compromises the quality of studies. Therefore, a greater effort is needed to enable the appropriate performance of future studies and increase the robustness of evidence-based medicine in this important field.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-016-0181-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.