Accentuating patient values in shared decision-making:A mixed methods development of an online value clarification tool and communication training in the context of early phase clinical cancer trials

Objective: In the shared decision-making (SDM) process for potential early phase clinical cancer trial participation, value clarification is highly recommended. However, exploration and discussion of patient values between patients and oncologists remains limited. This study aims to develop an SDM-supportive intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) and a communication training. Methods: The OnVaCT intervention was developed and pilot-tested by combining theoretical notions on value clarification, with interview studies with patients and oncologists, focus groups with patient representatives and oncologists, and think aloud sessions with patients, following the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions. These human-centered methodologies enabled a user-centered approach at every step of the development process of the intervention. Results: This study shows relevant patient values and oncologists’ perspectives on value exploration and discussion in daily practice. This has been combined with theoretical considerations into the creation of characters based on real-life experiences of patients in the OnVaCT, and how the tool is combined with a communication training for oncologists to improve SDM.</p

Grief after Pandemic Loss:Factors Affecting Grief Experiences (the CO-LIVE Study) (#236876363)

It has been suggested that grief after losing a significant other person during the COVID-19 pandemic is more severe than before the pandemic. However, little is known about the factors associated with COVID-19-related grief. This study aims to examine whether grief among relatives of people who died during the first COVID-19 wave was associated with factors such as (in)sufficient opportunity to be with the dying person, relatives’ appreciation of how the person died, and “unfinished business” between the bereaved and the deceased. The study involved 200 Dutch relatives who had lost a person during the pandemic. Grief was measured with the Hogan Despair subscale. Data were analyzed using correlations and multivariable regression analysis. Our findings revealed that two-thirds of bereaved relatives reported that they had not had sufficient opportunity to be with the dying person in the final days. However, this experience was not significantly correlated with despair. A negative appreciation of the dying process and remaining unfulfilled wishes as part of “unfinished business” between the dying person and their relative were associated with higher levels of despair, particularly among partners. It is crucial to ensure that relatives can experience good end-of-life care for their dying loved one and be enabled to resolve family issues, to mitigate the impact of the pandemic.</p

Patient values in patient-provider communication about participation in early phase clinical cancer trials:a qualitative analysis before and after implementation of an online value clarification tool intervention

Background: Patients with advanced cancer who no longer have standard treatment options available may decide to participate in early phase clinical trials (i.e. experimental treatments with uncertain outcomes). Shared decision-making (SDM) models help to understand considerations that influence patients’ decision. Discussion of patient values is essential to SDM, but such communication is often limited in this context and may require new interventions. The OnVaCT intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) for patients and communication training for oncologists, was previously developed to support SDM. This study aimed to qualitatively explore associations between patient values that are discussed between patients and oncologists during consultations about potential participation in early phase clinical trials before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. Methods: This study is part of a prospective multicentre nonrandomized controlled clinical trial and had a between-subjects design: pre-intervention patients received usual care, while post-intervention patients additionally received the OnVaCT. Oncologists participated in the communication training between study phases. Patients’ initial consultation on potential early phase clinical trial participation was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Applying a directed approach, two independent coders analysed the transcripts using an initial codebook based on previous studies. Steps of continuous evaluation and revision were repeated until data saturation was reached. Results: Data saturation was reached after 32 patient-oncologist consultations (i.e. 17 pre-intervention and 15 post-intervention). The analysis revealed the values: hope, perseverance, quality or quantity of life, risk tolerance, trust in the healthcare system/professionals, autonomy, social adherence, altruism, corporeality, acceptance of one’s fate, and humanity. Patients in the pre-intervention phase tended to express values briefly and spontaneously. Oncologists acknowledged the importance of patients’ values, but generally only gave ‘contrasting’ examples of why some accept and others refuse to participate in trials. In the post-intervention phase, many oncologists referred to the OnVaCT and/or asked follow-up questions, while patients used longer phrases that combined multiple values, sometimes clearly indicating their weighing. Conclusions: While all values were recognized in both study phases, our results have highlighted the different communication patterns around patient values in SDM for potential early phase clinical trial participation before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. This study therefore provides a first (qualitative) indication that the OnVaCT intervention may support patients and oncologists in discussing their values. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry: NL7335, registered on July 17, 2018.</p

Decisional Conflict after Deciding on Potential Participation in Early Phase Clinical Cancer Trials:Dependent on Global Health Status, Satisfaction with Communication, and Timing

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Early phase clinical trials are an essential part of modern drug development and thus the advance of anti-cancer therapies for patients. However, deciding whether to participate in such trials can be complex and patients have reported decisional conflict (i.e., unresolved decisional needs). The aim of our study was to untangle several factors that contribute to decisional conflict in patients with advanced cancer who have recently been asked to decide whether to participate in early phase clinical trials. We found that patients experienced less decisional conflict if they had a better global health status, higher satisfaction, and made their decision sooner. Other factors, such as the decision to (not) participate, did not prove to be the best indicators for decisional conflict. With these insights, we can start to build hypotheses on how to improve the decision-making process for patients with end-stage cancer, which can ultimately improve their quality of life. ABSTRACT: When standard treatment options are not available anymore, patients with advanced cancer may participate in early phase clinical trials. Improving this complex decision-making process may improve their quality of life. Therefore, this prospective multicenter study with questionnaires untangles several contributing factors to decisional conflict (which reflects the quality of decision-making) in patients with advanced cancer who recently decided upon early phase clinical trial participation (phase I or I/II). We hypothesized that health-related quality of life, health literacy, sense of hope, satisfaction with the consultation, timing of the decision, and the decision explain decisional conflict. Mean decisional conflict in 116 patients was 30.0 (SD = 16.9). Multivariate regression analysis showed that less decisional conflict was reported by patients with better global health status (β = −0.185, p = 0.018), higher satisfaction (β = −0.246, p = 0.002), and who made the decision before (β = −0.543, p < 0.001) or within a week after the consultation (β = −0.427, p < 0.001). These variables explained 37% of the variance in decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should realize that patients with lower global health status and who need more time to decide may require additional support. Although altering such patient intrinsic characteristics is difficult, oncologists can impact the satisfaction with the consultation. Future research should verify whether effective patient-centered communication could prevent decisional conflict

Discussing prognosis and the end of life with patients with advanced cancer or COPD: A qualitative study

Objectives To explore patients' experiences and recommendations for discussions about their prognosis and end of life with their physicians. Methods Patients with advanced cancer or advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were enrolled in qualitative interviews, which were analyzed with a phenomenological and thematic approach. Results During interviews with fourteen patients (median age 64 years), we identified the following themes for discussion about prognosis and the end of life: topics discussed, the timing, the setting, physician-patient relationship, responsibilities for clinicians, and recommendations. Patients preferred the physician to initiate such discussion, but wanted to decide about its continuation and content. The discussions were facilitated by an established physician- patient relationship or attendance of relatives. Patients with cancer had had discussions about prognosis at rather clear-cut moments of deterioration than patients with COPD. Patients with COPD did not consider end-of-life discussions a responsibility of the pulmonologist. Patients recommended an understandable message, involvement of relatives or other clinicians, sufficient time, and sensitive non-verbal communication. Conclusions Patients appreciated open, sensitive, and negotiable discussions about prognosis and the end of life. Practice implications Patients' recommendations could be used for communication training. Possible differences in the need for such discussions between patients with cancer or COPD warrant further research

Core values of patients with advanced cancer considering participation in an early-phase clinical trial: a qualitative study

Objective: This article identifies the core values that play a role in patients’ decision-making process about participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. Methods: Face-to-face, semi-structured serial interviews (n = 22) were performed with thirteen patients with advanced cancer recruited in two Dutch specialized cancer centers. In a cyclic qualitative analysis process, open and axial coding of the interviews finally led to an overview of the values that are woven into patients’ common language about cancer and clinical trials. Results: Six core values were described, namely, acceptance creates room for reconsideration of values, reconciliation with one’s fate, hope, autonomy, body preservation, and altruism. Previously found values in advanced cancer, such as acceptance, hope, autonomy, and altruism, were further qualified. Reconciliation with one’s fate and body preservation were highlighted as new insights for early-phase clinical cancer trial literature. Conclusions: This article furthers the understanding of core values that play a role in the lives and decision-making of patients with advanced cancer who explore participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. These values do not necessarily have to be compatible with one another, making tragic choices necessary. Understanding the role of core values can contribute to professional sensitivity regarding what motivates patients’ emotions, thoughts, and decisions and help patients reflect on and give words to their values and preferences. It supports mutual understanding and dialog from which patients can make decisions according to their perspectives on a good life for themselves and their fellows in the context of participation in an early-phase clinical cancer trial

Dying in times of COVID-19: Experiences in different care settings – An online questionnaire study among bereaved relatives (the CO-LIVE study)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and restricting measures have affected end-of-life care across different settings. Aim: To compare experiences of bereaved relatives with end-of-life care for a family member or friend who died at home, in a hospital, nursing home or hospice during the pandemic. Design: An open observational online survey was developed and disseminated via social media and public fora (March–July 2020). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses. Participants: Individuals who lost a family member or friend in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: The questionnaire was filled out by 393 bereaved relatives who lost a family member or friend at home (n = 68), in a hospital (n = 114), nursing home (n = 176) or hospice (n = 35). Bereaved relatives of patients who died in a hospital most often evaluated medical care (79%) as sufficient, whereas medical care (54.5%) was least often evaluated as sufficient in nursing homes. Emotional support for relatives was most often evaluated as sufficient at home (67.7%) and least often in nursing homes (40.3%). Sufficient emotional support for relatives was associated with a higher likelihood to rate the place of death as appropriate. Bereaved relatives of patients who died at a place other than home and whose care was restricted due to COVID-19 were less likely to evaluate the place of death as appropriate. Conclusion: End-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic was evaluated least favourably in nursing homes. The quality of emotional support for relatives and whether care was restricted or not were important for assessing the place of death as appropriate