Negotiating decisions on aggressive cancer care at end-of-life between patients, family members, and physicians – A qualitative interview study

Background

Patients with advanced cancer do receive increasingly aggressive end-of-life care, despite it does often not prolong survival time but entails decreased quality of life for patients. This qualitative study explores the unfolding of aggressive end-of-life care in clinical practice focusing on the decision-making process and the quality of end-of-life care from family members’ perspective.

Materials and methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 family members (six of cancer patients with and ten without aggressive end-of-life care) at the National Center for Tumor Diseases Heidelberg, Germany. We conducted a content analysis applying a theoretical framework to differentiate between ‘decision-making’ (process of deciding for one choice among many options) and ‘decision-taking’ (acting upon this choice).

Results

While patients of the aggressive care group tended to make and take decisions with their family members and physicians, patients of the other group took the decision against more aggressive treatment alone. Main reason for the decision in favor of aggressive care was the wish to spend more time with loved ones. Patients took decisions against aggressive care given the rapid decline in physical health and to spare relatives difficult decisions and arising feelings of guilt and self-reproach.

Conclusion

Treatment decisions at end-of-life are always individual. Nevertheless, treatment courses with aggressive end-of-life care and those without differ markedly. To account for a longitudinal perspective on the interplay between patients, family members, and physicians, cohort studies are needed. Meanwhile, clinicians should validate patients and family members considering refraining from aggressive end-of-life care and explore their motives.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00022837, identifier DRKS00022837.

Aggressiveness of Care at the End-of-Life in Cancer Patients and Its Association With Psychosocial Functioning in Bereaved Caregivers

Study Registration

https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00022837,DRKS00022837.

Background

Intensified oncological treatment for advanced cancer patients at the end-of-life has been specified as aggressiveness of care (AOC) and increased over the past decades. The aims of this study were to 1) determine the frequency of AOC in Central Europe, and 2) investigate differences in mental health outcomes in bereaved caregivers depending on whether the decedent had experienced AOC or not.

Materials and methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study in a large tertiary comprehensive cancer care center in Germany. Bereaved caregivers provided information about (a) treatment within the last month of life of the deceased cancer patient and (b) their own mental health status, i.e., decision regret, complicated grief, depression, and anxiety. After multiple imputation of missing data, differences in mental health outcomes between AOC-caregivers and non-AOC-caregivers were analyzed in a multivariate analysis of variances.

Results

We enrolled 298 bereaved caregivers of deceased cancer patients. AOC occurred in 30.9% of all patients. In their last month of life, 20.0% of all patients started a new chemotherapy regimen, and 13.8% received ICU-treatment. We found differences in mental health outcomes between bereaved AOC- and non-AOC-caregivers. Bereaved AOC caregivers experienced significantly more decision regret compared to non-AOC caregivers (Cohen's d = 0.49, 95% CI [0.23, 0.76]).

Conclusion

AOC occurs frequently in European health care and is associated with poorer mental health outcomes in bereaved caregivers. Future cohort studies should substantiate these findings and explore specific trajectories related to AOC. Notwithstanding, shared-decision making at end-of-life should increasingly account for both patients' and caregivers' preferences.

Patients' Perspective on Mental Health Specialist Video Consultations in Primary Care: Qualitative Preimplementation Study of Anticipated Benefits and Barriers

Background

Due to limited access to specialist services, most patients with common mental disorders (depression or anxiety, or both) usually receive treatment in primary care. More recently, innovative technology-based care models (eg, video consultations) have been proposed to facilitate access to specialist services. Against this background, the PROVIDE (Improving Cross-Sectoral Collaboration Between Primary and Psychosocial Care: An Implementation Study on Video Consultations) project aims to improve the provision of psychosocial care through implementing video consultations integrated into routine primary care.

Objective

From the patients’ perspective, this qualitative preimplementation study explored (1) anticipated benefits from and (2) barriers to implementing mental health specialist video consultations embedded in primary care services and (3) prerequisites for interacting with therapists via video consultations.

Methods

Using a purposive (ie, stratified) sampling strategy, we recruited 13 patients from primary care practices and a tertiary care hospital (psychosomatic outpatient clinic) for one-off semistructured interviews. In a computer-assisted thematic analysis, we inductively (bottom-up) derived key themes concerning the practicability of mental health specialist video consultations. To validate our results, we discussed our findings with the interviewees as part of a systematic member checking.

Results

Overall, we derived 3 key themes and 10 subthemes. Participants identified specific benefits in 2 areas: the accessibility of mental health specialist care (shorter waiting times: 11/13, 85%; lower threshold for seeking specialist mental health care: 6/13, 46%; shorter travel distances: 3/13, 23%); and the environment in primary care (familiar travel modalities, premises, and employees: 5/13, 38%). The main barriers to the implementation of mental health video consultations from the patients’ perspective were the lack of face-to-face contact (13/13, 100%) and technical challenges (12/13, 92%). Notably, participants’ prerequisites for interacting with therapists (12/13, 92%) did not seem to differ much from those concerning face-to-face contacts.

Conclusions

Mental health service users mostly welcomed mental health specialist video consultations in primary care. Taking a pragmatic stance, service users, who are often frustrated about uncoordinated care, particularly valued the embedment of the consultations in the familiar environment of the primary care practice. With respect to interventional studies and implementation, our findings underscore the need to minimize technical disruptions during video consultations and to ensure optimal resemblance to face-to-face settings (eg, by training therapists in consistently reacting to nonverbal cues).

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00012487; https://tinyurl.com/uhg2one