A semiparametric joint model for terminal trend of quality of life and survival in palliative care research

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Palliative medicine is an interdisciplinary specialty focusing on improving quality of life (QOL) for patients with serious illness and their families. Palliative care programs are available or under development at over 80% of large US hospitals (300+ beds). Palliative care clinical trials present unique analytic challenges relative to evaluating the palliative care treatment efficacy which is to improve patients’ diminishing QOL as disease progresses towards end of life (EOL). A unique feature of palliative care clinical trials is that patients will experience decreasing QOL during the trial despite potentially beneficial treatment. Often longitudinal QOL and survival data are highly correlated which, in the face of censoring, makes it challenging to properly analyze and interpret terminal QOL trend. To address these issues, we propose a novel semiparametric statistical approach to jointly model the terminal trend of QOL and survival data. There are two sub-models in our approach: a semiparametric mixed effects model for longitudinal QOL and a Cox model for survival. We use regression splines method to estimate the nonparametric curves and AIC to select knots. We assess the model performance through simulation to establish a novel modeling approach that could be used in future palliative care research trials. Application of our approach in a recently completed palliative care clinical trial is also presented

The TEAM Approach to Improving Oncology Outcomes by Incorporating Palliative Care in Practice

Palliative care (PC) concurrent with usual oncology care is now the standard of care that is recommended for any patient with advanced cancer to begin within 8 weeks of diagnosis on the basis of evidence-driven national clinical practice guidelines; however, there are not enough interdisciplinary palliative care teams to provide such care. How and what can an oncology office incorporate into usual care, borrowing the tools used in PC randomized clinical trials (RCTs), to improve care for patients and their caregivers? We reviewed the multiple RCTs for common practical elements and identified methods and techniques that oncologists can use to deliver some parts of concurrent interdisciplinary PC. We recommend the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcomes, including the evaluation of symptoms with such tools as the Edmonton or Memorial Symptom Assessment Scales, spirituality with the FICA Spiritual History Tool or similar questions, and psychosocial distress with the Distress Thermometer. All patients should be assessed for how they prefer to receive information, their current understanding of their situation, and if they have considered some advance care planning. Approximately 1 hour of additional time with the patient is required each month. If the oncologist does not have established ties with spiritual care and social work, he or she should establish these relationships for counseling as required. Caregivers should be asked about coping and support needs. Oncologists can adapt PC techniques to achieve results that are similar to those in the RCTs of PC plus usual care compared with usual care alone. This is comparable to using data from RCTs of trastuzamab or placebo, adopting what was used in the RCTs without modification or dilution

A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing Virtual Learning Collaborative and Technical Assistance strategies to implement an early palliative care program for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: a study protocol

Background: Virtual Learning Collaboratives (VLC), learning communities focused on a common purpose, are used frequently in healthcare settings to implement best practices. Yet, there is limited research testing the effectiveness of this approach compared to other implementation strategies. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a VLC compared to Technical Assistance (TA) among community oncology practices implementing ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends), an evidence-based, early palliative care telehealth, psycho-educational intervention for patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer and their caregivers. Methods: Using Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) and Proctor’s Implementation Outcomes Frameworks, this two-arm hybrid type-III cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) will compare two implementation strategies, VLC versus TA, among the 48 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice clusters that have not historically provided palliative care to all patients with advanced cancer. Three cohorts of practice clusters will be randomized to the study arms. Each practice cluster will recruit 15–27 patients and a family caregiver to participate in ENABLE. The primary study outcome is ENABLE uptake (patient level), i.e., the proportion of eligible patients who complete the ENABLE program (receive a palliative care assessment and complete the six ENABLE sessions over 12 weeks). The secondary outcome is overall program implementation (practice cluster level), as measured by the General Organizational Index at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Exploratory aims assess patient and caregiver mood and quality of life outcomes at baseline, 12, and 24 weeks. Practice cluster randomization will seek to keep the proportion of rural practices, practice sizes, and minority patients seen within each practice balanced across the two study arms. Discussion: This study will advance the field of implementation science by evaluating VLC effectiveness, a commonly used but understudied, implementation strategy. The study will advance the field of palliative care by building the capacity and infrastructure to implement an early palliative care program in community oncology practices. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT04062552; Pre-results. Registered: August 20, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04062552?term=NCT04062552&draw=2&rank=

Gynecologic Oncologist Views Influencing Referral to Outpatient Specialty Palliative Care

Early specialty palliative care is underutilized for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies. We sought to understand how gynecologic oncologists’ views influence outpatient specialty palliative care referral to help inform strategies for improvement

Palliative Care in Heart Failure: Rationale, Evidence, and Future Priorities

Patients with heart failure (HF) and their families experience stress and suffering from a variety of sources over the course of the HF experience. Palliative care is an interdisciplinary service and an overall approach to care that improves quality of life and alleviates suffering for those living with serious illness, regardless of prognosis. In this review, we synthesize the evidence from randomized clinical trials of palliative care interventions in HF. While the evidence base for palliative care in HF is promising, it is still in its infancy and requires additional high-quality, methodologically sound studies to clearly elucidate the role of palliative care for patients and families living with the burdens of HF. Yet, an increase in attention to primary palliative care (e.g., basic physical and emotional symptom management, advance care planning), provided by primary care and cardiology clinicians, may be a vehicle to address unmet palliative needs earlier and throughout the illness course

Developing a National Implementation Strategy to accelerate Uptake of Evidence-Based Family Caregiver Support in Us Cancer Centers

OBJECTIVE: Characterize key factors and training needs of U.S. cancer centers in implementing family caregiver support services. METHODS: Sequential explanatory mixed methods design consisting of: (1) a national survey of clinicians and administrators from Commission-on-Cancer-accredited cancer centers (N = 238) on factors and training needed for establishing new caregiver programs and (2) qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (N = 30) to elicit feedback on survey findings and the outline of an implementation strategy to facilitate implementation of evidence-based family caregiver support (the Caregiver Support Accelerator). Survey data was tabulated using descriptive statistics and transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: top factors for developing new caregiver programs were that the program be: consistent with the cancer center\u27s mission and strategic plan (87%), supported by clinic leadership (86.5%) and providers and staff (85.7%), and low cost or cost effective (84.9%). top training needs were how to: train staff to implement programs (72.3%), obtain program materials (63.0%), and evaluate program outcomes (62.6%). Only 3.8% reported that no training was needed. Qualitative interviews yielded four main themes: (1) gaining leadership, clinician, and staff buy-in and support is essential; (2) cost and clinician burden are major factors to program implementation; (3) training should help with adapting and marketing programs to local context and culture; and (4) the Accelerator strategy is comprehensive and would benefit from key organizational partnerships and policy standards. CONCLUSION: Findings will be used to inform and refine the Accelerator implementation strategy to facilitate the adoption and growth of evidence-based cancer caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers

The Project ENABLE Cornerstone Randomized Controlled Trial: Study Protocol for a Lay Navigator-led, Early Palliative Care Coaching Intervention for African American and Rural-dwelling Advanced Cancer Family Caregivers

Background: Family caregivers play a vital, yet stressful role in managing the healthcare needs and optimizing the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer, from the time they are newly diagnosed until end of life. While early telehealth palliative care has been found to effectively support family caregivers, little work has focused on historically under-resourced populations, particularly African American and rural-dwelling individuals. To address this need, we developed and are currently testing Project ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) Cornerstone, a lay navigator-led, early palliative care coaching intervention for family caregivers of African American and rural-dwelling patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer.Methods: This is a 2-site, single-blind, hybrid type I implementation-effectiveness trial of the Cornerstone intervention versus usual care. Cornerstone is a multicomponent intervention based on Pearlin’s Stress-Health Process Model where African American and/or rural-dwelling family caregivers of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer (target sample size = 294 dyads) are paired with a lay navigator coach and receive a series of six, brief 20–60-min telehealth sessions focused on stress management and coping, caregiving skills, getting help, self-care, and preparing for the future/advance care planning. Subsequent to core sessions, caregivers receive monthly follow-up indefinitely until the patient’s death. Caregiver and patient outcomes are collected at baseline and every 12 weeks until the patient’s death (primary outcome: caregiver distress at 24 weeks; secondary outcomes: caregiver: quality of life and burden; patient: distress, quality of life, and healthcare utilization). Implementation costs and the intervention cost effectiveness are also being evaluated.Discussion: Should this intervention demonstrate efficacy, it would yield an implementation-ready model of early palliative care support for under-resourced family caregivers. A key design principle that has centrally informed the Cornerstone intervention is that every caregiving situation is unique and each caregiver faces distinct challenges that cannot be addressed using a one-size-fits all approach. Hence, Cornerstone employs culturally savvy lay navigator coaches who are trained to establish a strong, therapeutic alliance with participants and tailor their coaching to a diverse range of individual circumstances

Availability of Family Caregiver Programs in Us Cancer Centers

IMPORTANCE: Family caregivers provide the majority of health care to the 18 million patients with cancer in the US. Yet despite providing complex medical and nursing care, a large proportion of caregivers report no formal support or training. In recognition of this gap, many interventions to support cancer caregivers have been developed and tested over the past 2 decades. However, there are few system-level data on whether US cancer centers have adopted and implemented these interventions. OBJECTIVE: to describe and characterize the availability of family caregiver support programs in US cancer centers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional national survey study was conducted between September 1, 2021, and April 30, 2023. Participants comprised clinical and administrative staff of Commission on Cancer-accredited US cancer centers. Data analysis was performed in May and June 2023. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Survey questions about the availability of 11 types of family caregiver programs (eg, peer mentoring, education classes, and psychosocial programs) were developed after literature review, assessment of similar program evaluation surveys, and discussions among a 13-member national expert advisory committee. Family caregiver programs were defined as structured, planned, and coordinated groups of activities and procedures aimed at specifically supporting family caregivers as part of usual care. Survey responses were tabulated using standard descriptive statistics, including means, proportions, and frequencies. RESULTS: Of the surveys sent to potential respondents at 971 adult cancer centers, 238 were completed (response rate, 24.5%). After nonresponse weight adjustment, most cancer centers (75.4%) had at least 1 family caregiver program; 24.6% had none. The most common program type was information and referral services (53.6%). Cancer centers with no programs were more likely to have smaller annual outpatient volumes (χ2 = 11.10; P = .011). Few centers had caregiver programs on training in medical and/or nursing tasks (21.7%), caregiver self-care (20.2%), caregiver-specific distress screening (19.3%), peer mentoring (18.9%), and children caregiving for parents (8.3%). Very few programs were developed from published evidence in a journal (8.1%). The top reason why cancer centers selected their programs was community members requesting the program (26.3%); only 12.3% of centers selected their programs based on scientific evidence. Most programs were funded by the cancer center or hospital (58.6%) or by philanthropy (42.4%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this survey study, most cancer centers had family caregiver programs; however, a quarter had none. Furthermore, the scope of programming was limited and rarely evidence based, with few centers offering caregiving education and training. These findings suggest that implementation strategies are critically needed to foster uptake of evidence-based caregiver interventions