Patients, family members and healthcare professionals’ top ten research priorities for adults receiving home parenteral nutrition for malignant or benign disease

Background & aims: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is the primary treatment for chronic intestinal failure (CIF) due to non-malignant disease and is increasingly used in patients with a diagnosis of cancer. This project engaged with patients, family members and healthcare professionals to ascertain what questions they want researched. Methods: This study followed the five-stage process of the James Lind Alliance that involved (1) setting up a steering group, (2) carrying out an initial survey to gather participants’ questions, (3) data processing, (4) an interim priority setting survey and (5) final priority setting workshop. Surveys were translated and back translated into Italian, Danish and French. Results: The project was delivered by an international steering committee with representation from Denmark, Italy, the United Kingdom and United States consisting of three patients, six healthcare professionals and facilitated by University researchers. For the first survey, 633 questions were submitted by 292 respondents from 12 countries. There were 79 questions removed as out of scope or already in the published literature. Responses were collated into two interim surveys of 41 questions for benign CIF and 13 questions for HPN and cancer. In the second survey, 216 respondents prioritised their top ten questions. The ordering from the cancer and HPN survey was taken as definitive; top priorities were quality of life, survival, when to commence HPN, using HPN with anti-cancer treatments, access barriers, measuring benefit and ethical implications. For CIF with benign disease, 18 questions were discussed in two workshops attended by 13 patients and 7 healthcare professionals. The questions were ranked using a modified nominal group technique; the top research priorities were prevention and treatment of liver disease, improving central infusion lines, oral absorption, avoiding long-term negative consequences, vascular access, side effects, line infections, decreasing stoma output, quality of life and sleep. Conclusions: Priorities identified will assist researchers to focus on research questions important to patients, family members and healthcare professionals

Impact of home parenteral nutrition on family members: A national multi-centre cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is a necessary treatment for patients with chronic, type 3, intestinal failure (IF). HPN often requires lifestyle adaptations, which are likely to affect quality of life (QoL) in both patients and family members. The aim of this study was to identify the level of burden on family members who are involved with HPN care and to understand specific factors that contribute to any burden. METHODS: Patients over the age of 18 and receiving HPN were identified in IF clinics from multiple centres across the U.K. Eligible patients were asked to complete the parenteral nutrition impact questionnaire (PNIQ) to assess their QoL, while family members were asked to complete the burden scale for family caregivers (BSFC). Logistical regression was undertaken giving adjusted odds ratios (aOR). RESULTS: 678 participants completed the survey representing 339 patients with their appointed family member. Mean PNIQ score was 11.53 (S.D. 5.5), representing a moderate impact of HPN on patients' QoL. On the BSFC scale, 23% of family members reported a moderate to very severe subjective burden indicating an increased risk of psychosomatic symptoms. After adjusting for age and gender, predictors of BSFC included: family members self-reported health status using the EuroQol visual analogue scale (aOR 19.91, 95% CI 1.69, 233.99, p = 0.017) and support received by health services (aOR = 5.83, 95% CI = 1.93, 17.56, p = 0.002). Employment status, disease type, number of nights on HPN and length of time on HPN were not associated with BSFC. CONCLUSIONS: Family members with a poor health status or lack of support by health service were more likely to have a moderate to very severe subjective burden. Tailored support from the multi-professional IF team may reduce the burden experienced by family members of people dependent on HPN.Supports Open AccessPublished version, accepted version (12 month embargo