Caregiving for older people living with chronic pain: Analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and Health Survey for England

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a disabling condition. Many people with chronic pain seek informal support for everyday activities of daily living. However there remains uncertainty on the type of people with chronic pain who access this support, what types of support they need and who provides such support. The purpose of this analysis was to answer these uncertainties.   METHODS: Data from the Health Survey for England (HSE) and English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) were accessed. People who reported chronic pain (moderate or above for minimum of 12 months) were identified. From these cohorts, we determined if individuals self-reported receiving informal care. Data on caregiver profiles and caregiving activities were reported through descriptive statistics. Logistic regression analyses were performed to compare health status outcomes between people with pain who received and who did not receive informal care.   RESULTS: 2178 people with chronic pain from the ELSA cohort and 571 from the HSE cohort were analysed. People who received care were frequently female, older aged with several medical morbidities including musculoskeletal diseases such as arthritis. People with chronic pain received informal care for several diverse tasks. Most frequently these related to instrumental activities of daily living such as shopping and housework. They were most frequently provided by partners or their children. Although they reported greater disability and symptoms (p<0.001), people who received care did not report differences in health status, loneliness or wellbeing (p=0.27; p=0.46).   CONCLUSIONS: Whilst it may be possible to characterise people living in chronic pain who receive informal care, there is some uncertainty on the impact of informal caregiving on their health and wellbeing. Consideration should now be made on how best to support both care recipients and informal caregivers, to ensure their health and quality of life is promoted whilst living with chronic pain

Informal caregiver training for people with chronic pain in musculoskeletal services (JOINT SUPPORT): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Introduction: Chronic musculoskeletal (bone, joint or muscle) pain is disabling. People with it frequently have difficulties in managing everyday activities. Individuals may rely on family members or friends to support them. These people are known as informal caregivers. No interventions have previously addressed the health needs of people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and their caregivers. In response, the JOINT SUPPORT programme was developed. In this study, we will assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the JOINT SUPPORT programme to support these individuals. Methods and Analysis: This will be a mixed-methods feasibility RCT. We will recruit 80 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain with their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomised to usual National Health Service (NHS) care OR usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (JOINT SUPPORT). This programme comprises of five, one-hour, group-based sessions for patients and caregivers, delivered by trained physiotherapists or occupational therapists. It includes developing skills in: understanding pain, pacing, graded activity, fear avoidance and goal-setting, understanding benefits of physical activity and skills in medication management. This will be re-enforced with a workbook. After the group-based sessions, patients and caregivers will be supported through three telephone sessions with a therapist. Data collected at baseline and three months will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists and clinical outcomes on quality of life, physical and emotional outcomes, adverse events and resource use. Qualitative research with 24 patient-caregiver dyads and 12 healthcare professionals will explore the acceptability of trial processes. Stop-go criteria will inform the progression to a full trial. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained on 22th February 2022 (National Research Ethics Committee Number: 22/NW/0015). Results will be reported at conferences, peer-review publications and across social media channels

A feasibility study to assess the design of a multicentre randomized controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a caregiving intervention for people following hip fracture surgery

AIMS: This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. METHODS: A mixed-methods feasibility RCT, recruiting 60 patients following hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomised to usual NHS care versus usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme will comprise of three, one-hour, one-to-one training sessions for the patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist. Training will be delivered in the hospital setting pre-patient discharge. It will include practical skills for rehabilitation such as: transfers and walking; recovery goal setting and expectations; and pacing and stress management techniques and introduction to the HIP HELPER Caregiver Workbook, which provides information on recovery, exercises, worksheets, goal-setting plans to facilitate a ‘good’ recovery. After discharge, patients and caregivers will be supported in delivering rehabilitation through three telephone coaching sessions. Data, collected at baseline and four months post-randomisation will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, quality assurance monitoring visit data and clinical outcomes assessing quality of life, physical, emotional, adverse event and resource use outcomes. The acceptability of the study intervention and RCT design will be explored through qualitative methods with 20 participants (patients and informal caregivers) and 12 health professionals. DISCUSSION: A multi-centre recruitment approach will provide greater external validity across population characteristics in England. The mixed-methods approach will permit in-depth examination of the intervention and trial design parameters. The findings will inform whether and how a definitive trial may be undertaken to test the effectiveness of this caregiver intervention for patients after hip fracture surgery

Caregiving for older people living with chronic pain: analysis of the English longitudinal study of ageing and health survey for England

Background: chronic pain is a disabling condition. Many people with chronic pain seek informal support for everyday activities of daily living (ADL). However, there remains uncertainty on the type of people with chronic pain who access this support, what types of support they need and who provides such support. The purpose of this analysis was to answer these uncertainties.Methods: data from the Health Survey for England (HSE) and English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) were accessed. People who reported chronic pain (moderate or above for minimum of 12 months) were identified. From these cohorts, we determined if individuals self-reported receiving informal care. Data on caregiver profiles and caregiving activities were reported through descriptive statistics. Logistic regression analyses were performed to compare health status outcomes between people with pain who received and who did not receive informal care.Results: 2178 people with chronic pain from the ELSA cohort and 571 from the HSE cohort were analysed. People who received care were frequently female, older aged with several medical morbidities including musculoskeletal diseases such as arthritis. People with chronic pain received informal care for several diverse tasks. Most frequently these related to instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) such as shopping and housework. They were most frequently provided by partners or their children. Although they reported greater disability and symptoms (p &lt; 0.001), people who received care did not report differences in health status, loneliness or wellbeing (p = 0.27; p = 0.46).Conclusions: whilst it may be possible to characterise people living in chronic pain who receive informal care, there is some uncertainty on the impact of informal caregiving on their health and wellbeing. Consideration should now be made on how best to support both care recipients and informal caregivers, to ensure their health and quality of life is promoted whilst living with chronic pain

Hospital-based caregiver intervention for people following hip fracture surgery (HIP HELPER): multi-centre randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded qualitative study in England.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. Design: Two-arm, multi-centre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study. Setting: National Health Service (NHS) providers in five English hospitals. Participants: Community-dwelling adults, aged 60 years and over, who undergo hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. Intervention: Usual care: usual NHS care. Experimental: usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme comprised of three, one-hour, one-to-one training sessions for a patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist in the hospital setting pre-discharge. After discharge, patients and caregivers were supported through three telephone coaching sessions. Randomisation and blinding: Central randomisation was computer generated (1:1), stratified by hospital and level of patient cognitive impairment. There was no blinding. Main outcome measures: Data collected at baseline and four months post-randomisation included: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, acceptability data and clinical outcomes. Interviews were conducted with a subset of participants and health professionals. Results: 102 participants were enrolled (51 patients; 51 caregivers). Thirty-nine percent (515/1311) of patients screened were eligible. Eleven percent (56/515) of eligible patients consented to be randomised. Forty-eight percent (12/25) of the intervention group reached compliance to their allocated intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. Qualitative data demonstrated the trial and HIP HELPER programme was acceptable. Conclusions: The HIP HELPER programme was acceptable to patient-caregiver dyads and health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting on site’s ability to deliver the research. Modifications are necessary to the design for a viable definitive RCT

Hospital-based caregiver intervention for people following hip fracture surgery (HIP HELPER): multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded qualitative study in England

Objectives To assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery.Design Two-arm, multicentre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study.Setting National Health Service (NHS) providers in five English hospitals.Participants Community-dwelling adults, aged 60 years and over, who undergo hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers.Intervention Usual care: usual NHS care. Experimental: usual NHS care plus a caregiver–patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme comprised three, 1 hour, one-to-one training sessions for a patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist in the hospital setting predischarge. After discharge, patients and caregivers were supported through three telephone coaching sessions.Randomisation and blinding Central randomisation was computer generated (1:1), stratified by hospital and level of patient cognitive impairment. There was no blinding.Main outcome measures Data collected at baseline and 4 months post randomisation included: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, acceptability data and clinical outcomes. Interviews were conducted with a subset of participants and health professionals.Results 102 participants were enrolled (51 patients; 51 caregivers). Thirty-nine per cent (515/1311) of patients screened were eligible. Eleven per cent (56/515) of eligible patients consented to be randomised. Forty-eight per cent (12/25) of the intervention group reached compliance to their allocated intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. Qualitative data demonstrated the trial and HIP HELPER programme was acceptable.Conclusions The HIP HELPER programme was acceptable to patient–caregiver dyads and health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting on site’s ability to deliver the research. Modifications are necessary to the design for a viable definitive RCT.Trial registration number ISRCTN13270387

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with paediatric cancer in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric cancer is a leading cause of death for children. Children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were four times more likely to die than children in high-income countries (HICs). This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected the delivery of healthcare services worldwide, and exacerbated the disparity in paediatric cancer outcomes between LMICs and HICs. DESIGN: A multicentre, international, collaborative cohort study. SETTING: 91 hospitals and cancer centres in 39 countries providing cancer treatment to paediatric patients between March and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were included if they were under the age of 18 years, and newly diagnosed with or undergoing active cancer treatment for Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, Wilms' tumour, sarcoma, retinoblastoma, gliomas, medulloblastomas or neuroblastomas, in keeping with the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause mortality at 30 days and 90 days. RESULTS: 1660 patients were recruited. 219 children had changes to their treatment due to the pandemic. Patients in LMICs were primarily affected (n=182/219, 83.1%). Relative to patients with paediatric cancer in HICs, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 12.1 (95% CI 2.93 to 50.3) and 7.9 (95% CI 3.2 to 19.7) times the odds of death at 30 days and 90 days, respectively, after presentation during the COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 15.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 65.8) times the odds of death at 30 days (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected paediatric oncology service provision. It has disproportionately affected patients in LMICs, highlighting and compounding existing disparities in healthcare systems globally that need addressing urgently. However, many patients with paediatric cancer continued to receive their normal standard of care. This speaks to the adaptability and resilience of healthcare systems and healthcare workers globally

Twelve-month observational study of children with cancer in 41 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Childhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality