Dataset Information

Is a specialist breathlessness service more effective and cost-effective for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care? Findings of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Breathlessness is common in advanced cancer. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease. We sought to establish whether BIS was more effective, and cost-effective, for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care.A single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed-method randomised controlled trial (RCT) of BIS versus standard care was conducted. Participants were randomised to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). A total of 67 patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n = 35; control arm n = 32 received BIS after a two-week wait); 54 completed to the key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at two-weeks. Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Services Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews.BIS reduced patient distress due to breathlessness (primary outcome: -1.29; 95% CI -2.57 to -0.005; P = 0.049) significantly more than the control group; 94% of respondents reported a positive impact (51/53). BIS reduced fear and worry, and increased confidence in managing breathlessness. Patients and carers consistently identified specific and repeatable aspects of the BIS model and interventions that helped. How interventions were delivered was important. BIS legitimised breathlessness and increased knowledge whilst making patients and carers feel 'not alone'. BIS had a 66% likelihood of better outcomes in terms of reduced distress due to breathlessness at lower health/social care costs than standard care (81% with informal care costs included).BIS appears to be more effective and cost-effective in advanced cancer than standard care.RCT registration at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008) and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008).

SUBMITTER: Farquhar MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4222435 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is a specialist breathlessness service more effective and cost-effective for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care? Findings of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial.

Farquhar Morag C MC Prevost A Toby AT McCrone Paul P Brafman-Price Barbara B Bentley Allison A Higginson Irene J IJ Todd Chris C Booth Sara S

BMC medicine 20141031

<h4>Background</h4>Breathlessness is common in advanced cancer. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease. We sought to establish whether BIS was more effective, and cost-effective, for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care.<h4>Methods</h4>A sin ...[more]

PMID: 25358424

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Breathlessness is the most common and intrusive symptom of advanced non-malignant respiratory and cardiac conditions. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention, theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease in managing their breathlessness. Having published the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of BIS for patients with advanced cancer and their carers, we sought to establish its effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, in advanced non-malignant conditions. METHODS:This was a single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed method RCT of BIS versus standard care for breathless patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers. Randomisation was to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). Eighty-seven patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n?=?44; control arm n?=?43 received BIS after four-week wait); 79 (91 %) completed to key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was 0-10 numeric rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at four weeks. Secondary outcome measures were Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Service Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews. RESULTS:Qualitative analyses showed the positive impact of BIS on patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers; quantitative analyses showed a non-significant greater reduction in the primary outcome ('distress due to breathlessness'), when compared to standard care, of -0.24 (95 % CI: -1.30, 0.82). BIS resulted in extra mean costs of £799, reducing to £100 when outliers were excluded; neither difference was statistically significant. The quantitative findings contrasted with those previously reported for patients with cancer and their carers, which showed BIS to be both clinically and cost effective. For patients with non-malignant conditions there was a notable trend of improvement over both trial arms to the key measurement point; participants may have experienced a therapeutic effect from the research interviews, diluting the intervention's impact. CONCLUSIONS:BIS had a statistically non-significant effect for patients with non-malignant conditions, and slightly increased service costs, but had a qualitatively positive impact consistent with findings for advanced cancer. Trials of palliative care interventions should consider multiple, mixed method, primary outcomes and ensure that protocols limit potential contaminating therapeutic effects in study designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008).

Project description:BACKGROUND:A specialist depression service (SDS) offering collaborative pharmacological and cognitive behaviour therapy treatment for persistent depressive disorder showed effectiveness against depression symptoms versus usual community based multidisciplinary care in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in specialist mental health services in England. However, there is uncertainty concerning how specialist depression services effect such change. The current study aimed to evaluate the factors which may explain the greater effectiveness of SDS compared to Treatment as Usual (TAU) by exploring the experience of the RCT participants. METHODS:Qualitative audiotaped and transcribed semi-structured interviews were conducted 12-18 months after baseline with 21 service users (12 SDS, 9 TAU arms) drawn from all three sites. Inductive thematic analysis using a grounded approach contrasted the experiences of SDS with TAU participants. RESULTS:Four themes emerged in relation to service user experience: 1. Specific treatment components of the SDS: which included sub-themes of the management of medication change, explaining and developing treatment strategies, setting realistic expectations, and person-centred and holistic approach; 2. Individual qualities of SDS clinicians; 3. Collaborative team context in SDS: which included sub-themes of communication between healthcare professionals, and continuity of team members; 4. Accessibility to SDS: which included sub-themes of flexibility of locations, frequent consultation as reinforcement, gradual pace of treatment, and challenges of returning to usual care. CONCLUSIONS:The study uncovered important mechanisms and contextual factors in the SDS that service users experience as different from TAU, and which may explain the greater effectiveness of the SDS: the technical expertise of the healthcare professionals, personal qualities of clinicians, teamwork, gradual pace of care, accessibility and managing service transitions. Usual care in other specialist mental health services may share many of the features from the SDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION:"Trial of the Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of a Specialist Expert Mood Disorder Team for Refractory Unipolar Depressive Disorder" was registered in www.ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01047124 ) on 12-01-2010 and the ISRCTN registry was registered in www.isrctn.com ( ISRCTN10963342 ) on 25-11-2015 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Midhurst Macmillan Specialist Palliative Care at Home Service was founded in 2006 to improve community-based palliative care provision. Principal components include; early referral; home-based clinical interventions; close partnership working; and flexible teamwork. Following a successful introduction, the model was implemented in six further sites across England. This article reports a mixed methods evaluation of the implementation across these 'Innovation Centres'. The evaluation aimed to assess the process and impact on staff, patients and carers of providing Macmillan Specialist Care at Home services across the six sites. METHODS:The study was set within a Realist Evaluation framework and used a longitudinal, mixed methods research design. Data collection over 15 months (2014-2016) included: Quantitative outcome measures - Palliative Performance Scale [PPS] and Palliative Prognostic Index [PPI] (n =?2711); Integrated Palliative Outcome Scales [IPOS] (n =?1157); Carers Support Needs Assessment Tool [CSNAT] (n =?241); Views of Informal Carers -Evaluation of Services [VOICES-SF] (n =?102); a custom-designed Service Data Tool [SDT] that gathered prospective data from each site (n =?88). Qualitative data methods included: focus groups with project team and staff (n =?32 groups with n =?190 participants), and, volunteers (n =?6 groups with n?=?32 participants). Quantitative data were analysed using SPPS Vs. 21 and qualitative data was examined via thematic analysis. RESULTS:Comparison of findings across the six sites revealed the impact of their unique configurations on outcomes, compounded by variations in stage and mode of implementation. PPS, PPI and IPOS data revealed disparity in early referral criteria, complicated by contrasting interpretations of palliative care. The qualitative analysis, CSNAT and VOICES-SF data confirmed the value of the Macmillan model of care but uptake of specialist home-based clinical interventions was limited. The Macmillan brand engendered patient and carer confidence, bringing added value to existing services. Significant findings included better co-ordination of palliative care through project management and a single referral point and multi-disciplinary teamwork including leadership from consultants in palliative medicine, the role of health care assistants in rapid referral, and volunteer support. CONCLUSIONS:Macmillan Specialist Care at Home increases patient choice about place of death and enhances the quality of end of life experience. Clarification of key components is advocated to aid consistency of implementation across different sites and support future evaluative work.

Project description:Breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom affecting many patients with advanced disease both from malignant and non-malignant origin. A combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures is necessary to treat this symptom successfully. Breathlessness services in various compositions aim to provide comprehensive care for patients and their carers by a multiprofessional team but their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness have not yet been proven. The Breathlessness Support Service (BSS) is a newly created multiprofessional and interdisciplinary outpatient service at a large university hospital in South East London. The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of this multidisciplinary out-patient BSS for the palliation of breathlessness, in advanced malignant and non-malignant disease.The BSS was modelled based on the results of qualitative and quantitative studies, and systematic literature reviews. A randomised controlled fast track trial (RCT) comprising two groups: 1) intervention (immediate access to BSS in addition to standard care); 2) control group (standard best practice and access to BSS after a waiting time of six weeks). Patients are included if suffering from breathlessness on exertion or at rest due to advanced disease such as cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), interstitial lung disease (ILD) or motor neurone disease (MND) that is refractory to maximal optimised medical management. Both quantitative and qualitative outcomes are assessed in face to-face interviews at baseline, after 6 and 12 weeks. The primary outcome is patients' improvement of mastery of breathlessness after six weeks assessed on the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ). Secondary outcomes for patients include breathlessness severity, symptom burden, palliative care needs, service use, and respiratory measures (spirometry). For analyses, the primary outcome, mastery of breathlessness after six weeks, will be analysed using ANCOVA. Selection of covariates will depend on baseline differences between the groups. Analyses of secondary outcomes will include patients' symptom burden other than breathlessness, physiological measures (lung function, six minute walk distance), and caregiver burden.Breathlessness services aim to meet the needs of patients suffering from this complex and burdensome symptom and their carers. The newly created BSS is different to other current services as it is run in close collaboration of palliative medicine and respiratory medicine to optimise medical care of patients. It also involves professionals from various medical, nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and social work background.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01165034).

Dataset Information

Is a specialist breathlessness service more effective and cost-effective for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care? Findings of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Is a specialist breathlessness service more effective and cost-effective for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care? Findings of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets