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

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

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

Access to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal population analysis

Background The UK National Health Service is striving to improve access to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer however limited information exists on the level of palliative care support currently provided in the UK. We aimed to establish the duration and intensity of palliative care received by patients with advanced cancer and identify which cancer patients are missing out. Methods Retrospective cancer registry, primary care and secondary care data were obtained and linked for 2474 patients who died of cancer between 2010 and 2012 within a large metropolitan UK city. Associations between the type, duration, and amount of palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received were assessed using Chi-squared, Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Multinomial multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the odds of receiving community and/or hospital palliative care compared to no palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received. Results Overall 64.6% of patients received palliative care. The average palliative care input was two contacts over six weeks. Community palliative care was associated with more palliative care events (p<0.001) for a longer duration (p<0.001). Patients were less likely to receive palliative care if they were: male (p = 0.002), aged 80 years or over (p<0.05), diagnosed with lung cancer (p<0.05), had not received an opioid prescription (p<0.001), or had not received chemotherapy (p<0.001). Patients given radiotherapy were more likely to receive community only palliative care compared to no palliative care (Odds Ratio = 1.49, 95% Confidence Interval = 1.16–1.90). Conclusion Timely supportive care for cancer patients is advocated but these results suggest that older patients and those who do not receive anti-cancer treatment or opioid analgesics miss out. These patients should be targeted for assessment to identify unmet needs which could benefit from palliative care input

Phase 2 Randomised Controlled Trial and Feasibility Study of Future Care Planning in Patients with Advanced Heart Disease

Future Care Planning (FCP) rarely occurs in patients with heart disease until close to death by which time the potential benefits are lost. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability and tested a design of a randomised trial evaluating the impact of FCP in patients and carers. 50 patients hospitalised with acute heart failure or acute coronary syndrome and with predicted 12 month mortality risk of >20% were randomly allocated to FCP or usual care for 12 weeks upon discharge and then crossed-over for the next 12 weeks. Quality of life, symptoms and anxiety/distress were assessed by questionnaire. Hospitalisation and mortality events were documented for 6 months post-discharge. FCP increased implementation and documentation of key decisions linked to end-of-life care. FCP did not increase anxiety/distress (Kessler score -E 16.7 (7.0) vs D 16.8 (7.3), p = 0.94). Quality of life was unchanged (EQ5D: E 0.54(0.29) vs D 0.56(0.24), p = 0.86) while unadjusted hospitalised nights was lower (E 8.6 (15.3) vs D 11.8 (17.1), p = 0.01). Qualitative interviews indicated that FCP was highly valued by patients, carers and family physicians. FCP is feasible in a randomised clinical trial in patients with acute high risk cardiac conditions. A Phase 3 trial is needed urgently