Identification of challenges to the availability and accessibility of opioids in twelve European countries:conclusions from two ATOME six-country workshops

Background: Access to many controlled medicines is inadequate in a number of European countries. This leads to deficits in the treatment of moderate to severe pain as well as in opioid agonist therapy. Objective: The study objective was to elaborate the reasons for this inadequacy. The work plan of the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe (ATOME) project included two six-country workshops. These workshops comprised a national situational analysis, drafting tailor-made recommendations for improvement and developing action plans for their implementation. Methods: In total, 84 representatives of the national Ministries of Health, national controlled substances authorities, experts representing regulatory and law enforcement authorities, leading health care professionals, and patient representatives from 13 European countries participated in either one of the workshops. The delegates used breakout sessions to identify key common challenges. Content analysis was used for the evaluation of protocols and field notes. Results: A number of challenges to opioid accessibility in the countries was identified in the domains of knowledge and educational, regulatory, legislative, as well as public awareness and training barriers that limit opioid prescription. In addition, short validity of prescriptions and bureaucratic practices resulting in overregulation impeded availablity of some essential medicines. Stigmatization and criminalisation of people who use drugs remained the major impediment to increasing opioid agonist program coverage. Conclusions: The challenges identified during outcomes of the workshops were used as the basis for subsequent dissemination and implementation activities in the ATOME project, and in some countries the workshop proceedings already served as a stepping-stone for the first changes in regulations and legislation

Evaluation of a Study Protocol of the Application of Humor Interventions in Palliative Care Through a First Pilot Study

BACKGROUND: Humor and laughter might have an alleviating effect on pain threshold and enhance coping and building relationships. However, randomized controlled studies in palliative care have struggled with high percentages of attrition and missing values. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate a study protocol through a pilot study for the evaluation of a multistage humor intervention with psychological and physiological outcome parameters that may be applied successfully in a palliative care environment. DESIGN: This pilot study utilized a pre-post design. The inclusion of a control group for the final study setting recruiting 120 patients is planned. SETTING/SUBJECTS: The study was a monocenter study in a clinic for palliative care in Germany. All patients were eligible for recruitment. Seven patients were recruited for the pilot study. MEASUREMENTS: Interventions were developed using a humor training for psychiatric patients. Quantitative sensory testing for pain threshold testing and questionnaires on humor as a character trait, pain intensity, life satisfaction, and symptom burden were planned to be evaluated before and after three humor interventions. RESULTS: The feasibility of the original study design was re-evaluated after pilot testing. Only two out of the seven patients were able to complete two interventions, requiring modification. Fewer questionnaires, less complex physiological testing, and reduction from three to two interventions were then planned. CONCLUSION: The initial planned research methodology must be adjusted for patients with high symptom burden. In the experimental group of the final study setting, the effects of one to two interventions will be evaluated measuring oxytocin levels in saliva and using standardized questionnaires to determine cheerfulness, life satisfaction and symptom burden, as well as assessing as-needed medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00028978 German Registry of Clinical Studies

Table_1_Humor Assessment and Interventions in Palliative Care: A Systematic Review.DOCX

<p>Background: The central goal of palliative care is to optimize the quality of life of patients suffering from life-limiting illnesses, which includes psychosocial and spiritual wellbeing. Research has demonstrated positive correlations between humor and laughter with life satisfaction and other aspects of wellbeing, and physiological symptoms can be improved by humorous stimuli.</p><p>Objectives: The aim of this review is to evaluate humor interventions and assessments that have been applied in palliative care and to derive implications for future research.</p><p>Methods: A systematic review of four databases identified 13 included studies. Criteria for inclusion were peer-reviewed English-language studies on humor interventions or assessments in a palliative care context.</p><p>Results: Two studies on humor interventions and 11 studies on humor assessment were included in the systematic review. Most of these studies were about the patients' perspective on humor in palliative care. Findings showed that humor had a positive effect on patients, their relatives, and professional caregivers. Humor was widely perceived as appropriate and seen as beneficial to care in all studies.</p><p>Conclusions: Even though humor interventions seem to be potentially useful in palliative care, descriptions evaluating their use are scarce. Overall, research on humor assessment and interventions in palliative care has remained limited in terms of quantity and quality. More research activities are needed to build a solid empirical foundation for implementing humor and laughter as part of regular palliative care activities.</p

The perception of barriers concerning opioid medicines: A survey examining differences between policy makers, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders

Background: In many countries, the consumption of opioid medicines is too low to meet population needs. Discussions within the Access To Opioid Medication in Europe project indicated that there may be significant differences in the perception of barriers for their adequate use, depending on the stakeholders. Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the perception of barriers and their impact concerning opioid medicines, comparing policy makers, healthcare professionals working in the field of pain management, palliative care or harm reduction and other stakeholders. Design: Data were collected using a questionnaire partially constructed from existing surveys, reviewed for content validity by four experts and pilot-tested in Latvia. Setting/participants: Participants of the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe national conferences were invited to complete the questionnaire. Stakeholder groups were compared using non-parametric rank-sum tests. Results: In total, 199 participants (54%) in seven countries completed the questionnaire. Most frequently rated major barriers included lack of financial resources and inadequate knowledge, skills and training among policy makers (55%–66%). Overall, policy makers perceived issues less often as major barriers or having major impact (29% barrier, 32% impact) compared to other stakeholders (36%–42% barrier, 39%–51% impact). Significant differences were seen on several aspects. For example, excessive regulation or bureaucracy for prescribing was rated as having major impact by 55%–57% of healthcare professionals in contrast to only 20% of the policy makers (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Multiple barriers may play an important role, partly depending on the perspective of the stakeholder involved. Hence, when addressing perceived barriers, it is important to include all relevant stakeholder groups. Only then, effective and widely supported solutions can be implemented

Integrated palliative care networks from the perspectives of patients: A cross-sectional explorative study in five European countries

Item does not contain fulltex

Disseminating research findings using a Massive Online Open Course for maximising impact and developing recommendations for practice

Background Developing recommendations for how we deliver healthcare is often left to leading experts in a field. Findings from the Integrated Palliative Care in cancer and chronic conditions (InSup-C) study, which aimed to identify best practice in integrated palliative care in cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure, led to recommendations developed through an expert consultation process. We also wanted to develop these recommendations further with participants who were largely clinicians and members of the public. Methods Results from the InSup-C study were disseminated through a three-week massive open online course (MOOC) which ran in 2016, 2017 and 2019. The first course helped develop the final recommendations, which were ranked by MOOC participants in the subsequent courses. MOOC participants were predominantly clinicians, but also academics and members of the public. They rated how important each recommendation was on a 9 point scale (9 most important). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the ratings. The results were compared to findings from the consultation. Results Five hundred fifteen completed the last part of the course where the recommendations were ranked, of which 195 (38%) completed the ratings. The top recommendations related to: need to expand palliative care to non-malignant conditions; palliative care needs to include different dimensions of care including physical, psychological and spiritual; policies and regulations assessments should be made regularly; palliative care integration should be mandatory; and there should be greater availability of medicines. These differed compared to the top ranked recommendations by the consultation panel in relation to the importance of leadership and policy making. This may indicate that clinicians are more focused on daily care rather than the (inter) national agenda. Conclusions Whilst both sets of recommendations are important, our study shows that we need to include the views of clinicians and the public rather than rely upon leading expert opinion alone. To keep recommendations fresh we need both the input of clinicians, the public and experts. When disseminating findings, MOOCs offer a useful way to gain greater reach with clinicians and the public, and importantly could be a vehicle to validate recommendations made by leading expert panels

Integrated palliative care is about professional networking rather than standardisation of care: A qualitative study with healthcare professionals in 19 integrated palliative care initiatives in five European countries

Contains fulltext : 191914.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

The perception of barriers concerning opioid medicines: A survey examining differences between policy makers, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders

Background: In many countries, the consumption of opioid medicines is too low to meet population needs. Discussions within the Access To Opioid Medication in Europe project indicated that there may be significant differences in the perception of barriers for their adequate use, depending on the stakeholders. Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the perception of barriers and their impact concerning opioid medicines, comparing policy makers, healthcare professionals working in the field of pain management, palliative care or harm reduction and other stakeholders. Design: Data were collected using a questionnaire partially constructed from existing surveys, reviewed for content validity by four experts and pilot-tested in Latvia. Setting/participants: Participants of the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe national conferences were invited to complete the questionnaire. Stakeholder groups were compared using non-parametric rank-sum tests. Results: In total, 199 participants (54%) in seven countries completed the questionnaire. Most frequently rated major barriers included lack of financial resources and inadequate knowledge, skills and training among policy makers (55%–66%). Overall, policy makers perceived issues less often as major barriers or having major impact (29% barrier, 32% impact) compared to other stakeholders (36%–42% barrier, 39%–51% impact). Significant differences were seen on several aspects. For example, excessive regulation or bureaucracy for prescribing was rated as having major impact by 55%–57% of healthcare professionals in contrast to only 20% of the policy makers (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Multiple barriers may play an important role, partly depending on the perspective of the stakeholder involved. Hence, when addressing perceived barriers, it is important to include all relevant stakeholder groups. Only then, effective and widely supported solutions can be implemented

The perception of barriers concerning opioid medicines: A survey examining differences between policy makers, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders

Background: In many countries, the consumption of opioid medicines is too low to meet population needs. Discussions within the Access To Opioid Medication in Europe project indicated that there may be significant differences in the perception of barriers for their adequate use, depending on the stakeholders. Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the perception of barriers and their impact concerning opioid medicines, comparing policy makers, healthcare professionals working in the field of pain management, palliative care or harm reduction and other stakeholders. Design: Data were collected using a questionnaire partially constructed from existing surveys, reviewed for content validity by four experts and pilot-tested in Latvia. Setting/participants: Participants of the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe national conferences were invited to complete the questionnaire. Stakeholder groups were compared using non-parametric rank-sum tests. Results: In total, 199 participants (54%) in seven countries completed the questionnaire. Most frequently rated major barriers included lack of financial resources and inadequate knowledge, skills and training among policy makers (55%-66%). Overall, policy makers perceived issues less often as major barriers or having major impact (29% barrier, 32% impact) compared to other stakeholders (36%-42% barrier, 39%-51% impact). Significant differences were seen on several aspects. For example, excessive regulation or bureaucracy for prescribing was rated as having major impact by 55%-57% of healthcare professionals in contrast to only 20% of the policy makers (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Multiple barriers may play an important role, partly depending on the perspective of the stakeholder involved. Hence, when addressing perceived barriers, it is important to include all relevant stakeholder groups. Only then, effective and widely supported solutions can be implemented