Development and content validation of a questionnaire measuring patient empowerment in cancer follow-up

Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop and ensure the content validity of a new patient-reported outcome measure, the Cancer Patient Empowerment Questionnaire (CPEQ), to measure the level of, desire for, and enablement of empowerment among cancer patients in follow-up. Methods: An iterative process based on: (i) empowerment theories by Zimmerman and Tengland, (ii) a systematic review of questionnaires measuring empowerment or related concepts among cancer patients, (iii) qualitative data from 18 semi-structured interviews with Danish cancer patients in follow-up, (iv) input from a group of eight cancer patients involved as co-researchers and from an expert steering group, and (v) cognitive interviews with 15 cancer patients in follow-up. Results: The items for the CPEQ were developed and revised and 12 versions of the questionnaire were evaluated. The final version consists of 67 items, covering three different dimensions of empowerment: (A) empowerment outcomes consisting of three components: (A1) the intrapersonal-, (A2) interactional-, and (A3) behavioral component, (B) empowerment facilitators (enablement), and (C) the value of empowerment. Conclusions: This study documents the theoretical and empirical basis for the development of the CPEQ and its content validity. The CPEQ provides a tool for researchers to assess the level of, desire for, and enablement of empowerment among cancer patients. The next steps will be to use the CPEQ in a nationwide study of empowerment in cancer follow-up and subsequently shorten the CPEQ based on psychometric methods in order to make it more relevant in clinical studies

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

Advance care planning, a multi-centre cluster randomised clinical trial: the research protocol of the ACTION study

Background: Awareness of preferences regarding medical care should be a central component of the care of patients with advanced cancer. Open communication can facilitate this but can occur in an ad hoc or variable manner. Advance care planning (ACP) is a formalized process of communication between patients, relatives and professional caregivers about patients’ values and care preferences. It raises awareness of the need to anticipate possible future deterioration of health. ACP has the potential to improve current and future healthcare decision making, provide patients with a sense of control, and improve their quality of life. Methods/Design: We will study the effects of the ACP program Respecting Choices on the quality of life of patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer. In a phase III multicenter cluster randomised controlled trial, 22 hospitals in 6 countries will be randomised. In the intervention sites, patients will be offered interviews with a trained facilitator. In the control sites, patients will receive care as usual. In total, 1360 patients will be included. All participating patients will be asked to complete questionnaires at inclusion, and again after 2.5 and 4.5 months. If a patient dies within a year after inclusion, a relative will be asked to complete a questionnaire on end-of-life care. Use of medical care will be assessed by checking medical files. The primary endpoint is patients’ quality of life at 2.5 months ost-inclusion. Secondary endpoints are the extent to which care as received is aligned with patients’ preferences, patients’ evaluation of decision-making processes, quality of end-of-life care and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. A complementary qualitative study will be carried out to explore the lived experience of engagement with the Respecting Choices program from the perspectives of patients, their Personal Representatives, healthcare providers and facilitators. Discussion: Transferring the concept of ACP from care of the elderly to patients with advanced cancer, who on average are younger and retain their mental capacity for a larger part of their disease trajectory, is an important next step in an era of increased focus on patient centered healthcare and shared decision-making. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN63110516. Date of registration: 10/3/2014. Keywords: Advance care planning, Oncology, Quality of life, Medical decision-makin

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

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