Impact of advance care planning on end-of-life management

_Purpose of review_ The aim of this review is to critically appraise the recent evidence on different aspects of impact of advance care planning (ACP) in palliative care and to reflect on further implications on practice and research in the future. _Recent findings_ Evidence about various ACP impacts is rapidly growing and most common outcome measures are still advance directive completion, change in hospital admission rate and patients' and families' views and experiences with ACP. Mainly descriptive studies bring new information of ACP impact for specific groups of patients, their families, settings, countries, contexts, staff and healthcare system as such. It is not yet clear who and when would best conduct ACP, from general practitioners (GPS) to specialists in the hospitals and even lay-navigators for cancer patients; from early ACP conversations to critical ACP in acute events at the end-of-life. The need for ACP impacts high-quality evidence is becoming more urgent because latest future projections are showing higher palliative care needs than previously expected. _Summary_ Recent studies on various ACP impacts reveal variety of outcomes for different patient groups and settings, and are contributing to a wider picture of ACP situation around the world. However, high-quality evidence on ACP impact is still urgently expected in times of growing need for system-level changes for effective ACP implementation

Coping strategies of patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer in six European countries: Insights from the ACTION Study

Objective: Even when medical treatments are limited, supporting patients’ coping strategies could improve their quality of life. Greater understanding of patients’ coping strategies, and influencing factors, can aid developing such support. We examined the prevalence of coping strategies and associated variables. Methods: We used sociodemographic and baseline data from the ACTION trial, including measures of Denial, Acceptance, and Problem-focused coping (COPE; Brief COPE inventory), of patients with advanced cancer from six European countries. Clinicians provided clinical information. Linear mixed models with clustering at hospital level were used. Results: Data from 675 patients with stage III/IV lung (342, 51%) or stage IV colorectal (333, 49%) cancer were used; mean age 66 (10 SD) years. Overall, patients scored low on Denial and high on Acceptance and Problem-focused coping. Older age was associated with higher scores on Denial than younger age (β = 0.05; CI[0.023; 0.074]), and patients from Italy (β = 1.57 CI[0.760; 2.388]) and Denmark (β = 1.82 CI[0.881; 2.750]) scored higher on Denial than patients in other countries. Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer predominantly used Acceptance and Problem-focused coping, and Denial to a lesser extent. Since the studied coping strategies of patients with advanced cancer vary between subpopulations, we recommend taking these factors into account when developing tailored interventions to support patients’ coping strategies

Missing not at random in end of life care studies: multiple imputation and sensitivity analysis on data from the ACTION study

Background: Missing data are common in end-of-life care studies, but there is still relatively little exploration of which is the best method to deal with them, and, in particular, if the missing at random (MAR) assumption is valid or missing not at random (MNAR) mechanisms should be assumed. In this paper we investigated this issue through a sensitivity analysis within the ACTION study, a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial testing advance care planning in patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer. Methods: Multiple imputation procedures under MAR and MNAR assumptions were implemented. Possible violation of the MAR assumption was addressed with reference to variables measuring quality of life and symptoms. The MNAR model assumed that patients with worse health were more likely to have missing questionnaires, making a distinction between single missing items, which were assumed to satisfy the MAR assumption, and missing values due to completely missing questionnaire for which a MNAR mechanism was hypothesized. We explored the sensitivity to possible departures from MAR on gender differences between

Content analysis of Advance Directives completed by patients with advanced cancer as part of an Advance Care Planning intervention: insights gained from the ACTION trial

Purpose: Writing an Advance Directive (AD) is often seen as a part of Advance Care Planning (ACP). ADs may include specific preferences regarding future care and treatment and information that provides a context for healthcare professionals and relatives in case they have to make decisions for the patient. The aim of this study was to get insight into the content of ADs as completed by patients with advanced cancer who participated in ACP conversations. Methods: A mixed methods study involving content analysis and descriptive statistics was used to describe the content of completed My Preferences forms, an AD used in the intervention arm of the ACTION trial, testing the effectiveness of the ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention. Results: In total, 33% of 442 patients who received the ACTION RC ACP intervention completed a My Preferences form. Document completion varied per country: 10.4% (United Kingdom), 20.6% (Denmark), 29.2% (Belgium), 41.7% (the Netherlands), 61.3% (Italy) and 63.9% (Slovenia). Content analysis showed that ‘maintaining normal life’ and ‘experiencing meaningful relationships’ were important for patients to live well. Fears and worries mainly concerned disease progression, pain or becoming dependent. Patients hoped for prolongation of life and to be looked after by healthcare professionals. Most patients preferred to be resuscitated and 44% of the patients expressed maximizing comfort as their goal of future care. Most patients preferred ‘home’ as final place of care. Conclusions: My Preferences forms provide some insights into patients’ perspectives and preferences. However, understanding the reasoning behind preferences requires conversations with patients