Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Enzinger AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7769864 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite requirements of informed consent, patients with advanced cancer often receive palliative chemotherapy (PC) without understanding that the likelihood of cure is remote.ObjectiveTo determine whether a PC educational video and booklet at treatment initiation could improve patients' understanding of its benefits and risks.InterventionsRegimen-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 participantsMulticenter 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 measuresThe 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).ResultsAmong 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 relevanceProvision 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02282722.

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the value of a novel simulation-based palliative care educational intervention within an emergency medicine (EM) residency curriculum.MethodsA palliative care scenario was designed and implemented in the simulation program at an urban academic emergency department (ED) with a 3-year EM residency program. EM residents attended one of eight high-fidelity simulation sessions, in groups of 5-6. A standardized participant portrayed the patient's family member. One resident from each session managed the scenario while the others observed. A 45-min debriefing session and small group discussion followed the scenario, facilitated by an EM simulation faculty member and a resident investigator. Best practices in palliative care were highlighted along with focused learner performance feedback. Participants completed an anonymous pre/post education intervention survey.ResultsForty of 42 EM residents (95%) participated in the study. Confidence in implementing palliative care skills and perceived importance of palliative care improved after this educational intervention. Specifically, residents 1) felt EM physicians had an important role in palliative care, 2) had increased confidence in the ability to determine patient decision-making capacity, 3) had improved confidence in initiating palliative discussions/treatment, 4) believed palliative education was important in residency, and 5) felt simulation was an effective means to learn palliative care. Differences noted between PGY1 and PGY 3 training levels in survey responses disappeared post-intervention. Residents noted being most comfortable with delivering bad news and symptom management and least comfortable with disease prognostication. Residents reported time constraints and implementation logistics in the ED as the most challenging factors for palliative care initiation.ConclusionOur case-based simulation intervention was associated with an increase in both the perceived importance of ED palliative care and self-reported confidence in implementing palliative care skills. Time constraints and implementation logistics were rated as the most challenging factors for palliative care initiation in the ED.

Project description:IntroductionPalliative care is a clinically and cost-effective component of cancer services in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Despite the significant need for palliative cancer care in SSA, coverage remains inadequate. The exploration of digital health approaches could support increases in the quality and reach of palliative cancer care services in SSA. However, there is currently a lack of any theoretical underpinning or data to understand stakeholder drivers for digital health components in this context. This project addresses this gap through engaging with key stakeholders to determine data and information needs that could be supported through digital health interventions.Methods and analysisThis is a multicountry, cross-sectional, qualitative study conducted in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe. In-depth interviews will be conducted in patients with advanced cancer (n=20), caregivers (n=15), health professionals (n=20) and policy-makers (n=10) in each of the three participating countries. Data from a total of 195 interviews will transcribed verbatim and translated into English before being imported into NVivo software for deductive framework analysis. The analysis will seek to understand the acceptability and define mechanisms of patient-level data capture and usage via digital technologies.Ethics and disseminationEthics approvals have been obtained from the Institutional Review Boards of University of Leeds (Ref: MREC 18-032), Research Council of Zimbabwe (Ref: 03507), Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe (Ref: MRCZ/A/2421), Uganda Cancer Institute (Ref: 19-2018), Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (Ref: HS325ES) and College of Medicine University of Lagos (Ref: HREC/15/04/2015). The project seeks to determine optimal mechanisms for the design and development of subsequent digital health interventions to support development, access to, and delivery of palliative cancer care in SSA. Dissemination of these findings will occur through newsletters and press releases, conference presentations, peer-reviewed journals and social media.Trial registration numberISRCTN15727711.

Project description:ObjectiveKnowledge about determinants of participation in lifestyle interventions in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, particularly with palliative intent, remains poor. The objective of the present study was to identify determinants of participating in a 12 month individualized, comprehensive lifestyle intervention, focusing on diet, physical activity, mental stress and smoking cessation, in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with curative or palliative intent. The secondary objective was to identify participation determinants 4 months into the study.MethodsNewly diagnosed cancer patients starting chemotherapy at the cancer center in Kristiansand/Norway (during a 16 month inclusion period) were screened. Demographic and medical data (age, sex, body mass index, education level, marital status, smoking status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG), diagnosis, tumor stage and treatment intention) was analyzed for screened patients.Results100 of 161 invited patients participated. There were more females (69 vs. 48%; P = 0.004), breast cancer patients (46 vs. 25%; P = 0.007), non-smokers (87 vs. 74%; P = 0.041), younger (mean age 60 vs. 67 yrs; P < 0.001) and fitter (82 vs. 64% with EGOC 0; P = 0.036) participants vs. non-participants included. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, age (Odds Ratio 0.94, 95% Confidence Interval 0.91, 0.97) and smoking (0.42, 0.18, 0.99) were negatively associated with participation. After 4 months, 63 participants were still participating. Cancer type, smoking and age increased the probability of dropping out. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that age was the only significant determinant of 4 month participation (0.95, 0.91, 0.99). Patients aged >70 years were less likely to participate at baseline and 4 months.ConclusionIndividualized lifestyle interventions in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy appear to facilitate a high participation rate that declines with increasing age; both during the enrollment process and completing the intervention. Neither oncologic nor socioeconomic variables deterred participation.

Project description:BackgroundPlanned, multidisciplinary teams' discussions of cases are common in cancer care, but their impact on patients' outcome is not always clear. Palliative care (PC) needs might emerge long before the last weeks of life. Many palliative care patients could be managed from the usual care staff, if appropriately trained; specialist palliative care should be provided to patients with more complex needs. Staff needs adequate training, so that only patients presenting a higher complexity are properly referred to the second level ("specialized") PC services. In the considered hospital setting, "tumour boards" (multidisciplinary discussions) refer often to a low number of patients. Overall complexity of patients' needs is hardly considered.MethodsA mixed method pilot study with data triangulation of professionals' interviews and an independently structured evaluation of complexity of referred patients, before and after the intervention, using the PALCOM instrument. We trained four teams of professionals to deliver first-level palliation and to refer patients with complex needs detected in multidisciplinary discussions. A multicomponent, first level PC educational intervention, including information technology's adaptation, a training course, and bedside training was offered from the specialized PC Services, to all the HPs involved in multidisciplinary pancreas, lung, ovarian, and liver tumour boards.ResultsWhile the level of complexity of referred patients did not increase, trainees seemed to develop a better understanding of palliative care and a higher sensitivity to palliative needs. The number of referred patients increased, but patients' complexity did not. Qualitative data showed that professionals seemed to be more aware of the complexity of PC needs. A "meaning shift" was perceived, specifically on the referral process (e.g., "when" and "for what" referring to specialist PC) and on the teams' increased focus on patients' needs. The training, positively received, was adapted to trainees' needs and observations that led also to organizational modifications.ConclusionsOur multicomponent intervention positively impacted the number of referrals but not the patients' complexity (measured with the PALCOM instrument). Hospital staff does not easily recognize that patients may have PC needs significantly earlier than at the end of life.

Project description:Background and objectivesLiving donor guidelines-both national and international-either do not address or are vague about what information can be shared between prospective living donors and transplant candidates, as well as when to make such disclosures and who should make them. This study explored the attitudes of donors and recipients regarding how much information they believe should be shared.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsTwo Email invitations were sent by the National Kidney Foundation (national headquarters) to its Email listservs, inviting members to participate in an online survey to assess the attitudes of kidney transplant stakeholders regarding the disclosure of health and health risk behavior information.ResultsFrom approximately 4200 unique Email addresses, 392 (9.3%) respondents completed part or all of the survey. The analyses were limited to the 236 respondents who self-identified as either donors (potential and actual, n=160) or recipients (candidates and actual, n=76). Overall, 79% (186 of 234) of respondents supported disclosure of general recipient health information that would affect post-transplant outcome to donors, and 88% (207 of 235) supported disclosure of general donor health information to recipients. Recipients and donors were also supportive of sharing donor and recipient information, particularly information relevant to graft and patient survival. There is some reticence, however, about sharing social information. The closer the relationship, the more information they are willing to share. Both donors and recipients wanted the transplant team involved in the information disclosure. Over three quarters of donors (79%) and recipients (78%) did not think the recipient had a right to know why a donor was excluded from donating.ConclusionsBoth donors and recipients want a significant amount of health information to be disclosed. The opinions of other stakeholders need to be surveyed to determine whether a revision of current policies and practices is warranted.