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

Distress among healthcare providers who provided end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic:a longitudinal survey study (the CO-LIVE study)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on care at the end-of-life due to restrictions and other circumstances such as high workload and uncertainty about the disease. The objective of this study is to describe the degree of various signs experienced by healthcare providers throughout the first 18 months of the pandemic and to assess what provider’s characteristics and care circumstances related to COVID-19 are associated with distress. Methods: A longitudinal survey study among healthcare providers from different healthcare settings who provided end-of-life care during the pandemic’s first 18 months. Data of four time periods were analyzed using descriptive statistics, logistic regression analysis and Generalized Estimating Equation. Results: Of the respondents (n=302) the majority had a nursing background (71.8%) and most worked in a hospital (30.3%). Although reported distress was highest in the first period, during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers reported signs of distress in all four time periods. Being more stressed than usual and being regularly exhausted were the most common signs of distress. Healthcare providers working in nursing homes and hospitals were more likely to experience signs of distress, compared to healthcare providers working in hospice facilities, during the whole period of 1.5 years. When HCPs were restricted in providing post-death care, they were more likely to feel more stressed than usual and find their work more often emotionally demanding. Conclusion: A substantial amount of healthcare providers reported signs of distress during the first 1.5 years of the COVID-19 pandemic. A cause of distress appears to be that healthcare providers cannot provide the care they desire due the pandemic. Even though the pandemic is over, this remains an important and relevant finding, as high workload can sometimes force healthcare providers to make choices about how they provide care. Given that this can cause prolonged stress and this can lead to burnout (and HCPs leaving their current positions), it is now especially important to continue observing the long term developments of the well-being of our healthcare providers in palliative care and provide timely and adequate support where needed.</p

Distress among healthcare providers who provided end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic:a longitudinal survey study (the CO-LIVE study)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on care at the end-of-life due to restrictions and other circumstances such as high workload and uncertainty about the disease. The objective of this study is to describe the degree of various signs experienced by healthcare providers throughout the first 18 months of the pandemic and to assess what provider’s characteristics and care circumstances related to COVID-19 are associated with distress. Methods: A longitudinal survey study among healthcare providers from different healthcare settings who provided end-of-life care during the pandemic’s first 18 months. Data of four time periods were analyzed using descriptive statistics, logistic regression analysis and Generalized Estimating Equation. Results: Of the respondents (n=302) the majority had a nursing background (71.8%) and most worked in a hospital (30.3%). Although reported distress was highest in the first period, during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers reported signs of distress in all four time periods. Being more stressed than usual and being regularly exhausted were the most common signs of distress. Healthcare providers working in nursing homes and hospitals were more likely to experience signs of distress, compared to healthcare providers working in hospice facilities, during the whole period of 1.5 years. When HCPs were restricted in providing post-death care, they were more likely to feel more stressed than usual and find their work more often emotionally demanding. Conclusion: A substantial amount of healthcare providers reported signs of distress during the first 1.5 years of the COVID-19 pandemic. A cause of distress appears to be that healthcare providers cannot provide the care they desire due the pandemic. Even though the pandemic is over, this remains an important and relevant finding, as high workload can sometimes force healthcare providers to make choices about how they provide care. Given that this can cause prolonged stress and this can lead to burnout (and HCPs leaving their current positions), it is now especially important to continue observing the long term developments of the well-being of our healthcare providers in palliative care and provide timely and adequate support where needed.</p

Gender, sexual orientation and health behaviors in the ELSA-Brasil cohort

This study aimed to investigate differences in health behaviors as a function of gender and sexual orientation in the ELSA-Brasil cohort. Data were collected using a multidimensional questionnaire on health-related behaviors. The sample consisted of 10,314 participants, each of whom was in a stable relationship. Individuals in same-sex relationships were more likely to smoke, to spend more of their leisure-time in front of a screen and to sleep longer. When the behaviors were analyzed as a function of sexual orientation and gender, women in heterosexual relationships were less likely to smoke or to drink in excess, got more hours of sleep and spent less leisure time in front of a screen. On the other hand, they were less likely to exercise. These findings should contribute towards preventing chronic diseases and promoting health in people with different sexual orientations in Brazil and in other similar settings

Patients' and Observers' Perceptions of Involvement Differ. Validation Study on Inter-Relating Measures for Shared Decision Making

OBJECTIVE: Patient involvement into medical decisions as conceived in the shared decision making method (SDM) is essential in evidence based medicine. However, it is not conclusively evident how best to define, realize and evaluate involvement to enable patients making informed choices. We aimed at investigating the ability of four measures to indicate patient involvement. While use and reporting of these instruments might imply wide overlap regarding the addressed constructs this assumption seems questionable with respect to the diversity of the perspectives from which the assessments are administered. METHODS: The study investigated a nested cohort (N = 79) of a randomized trial evaluating a patient decision aid on immunotherapy for multiple sclerosis. Convergent validities were calculated between observer ratings of videotaped physician-patient consultations (OPTION) and patients' perceptions of the communication (Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, Control Preference Scale & Decisional Conflict Scale). RESULTS: OPTION reliability was high to excellent. Communication performance was low according to OPTION and high according to the three patient administered measures. No correlations were found between observer and patient judges, neither for means nor for single items. Patient report measures showed some moderate correlations. CONCLUSION: Existing SDM measures do not refer to a single construct. A gold standard is missing to decide whether any of these measures has the potential to indicate patient involvement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Pronounced heterogeneity of the underpinning constructs implies difficulties regarding the interpretation of existing evidence on the efficacy of SDM. Consideration of communication theory and basic definitions of SDM would recommend an inter-subjective focus of measurement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN25267500

Experiences of treatment decision making for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders: a qualitative study in primary care and specialist mental health settings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical guidelines advocate for the inclusion of young people experiencing depression as well as their caregivers in making decisions about their treatment. Little is known, however, about the degree to which these groups are involved, and whether they want to be. This study sought to explore the experiences and desires of young people and their caregivers in relation to being involved in treatment decision making for depressive disorders.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured interviews were carried out with ten young people and five caregivers from one primary care and one specialist mental health service about their experiences and beliefs about treatment decision making. Interviews were audio taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Experiences of involvement for clients varied and were influenced by clients themselves, clinicians and service settings. For caregivers, experiences of involvement were more homogenous. Desire for involvement varied across clients, and within clients over time; however, most clients wanted to be involved at least some of the time. Both clients and caregivers identified barriers to involvement.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study supports clinical guidelines that advocate for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders to be involved in treatment decision making. In order to maximise engagement, involvement in treatment decision making should be offered to all clients. Involvement should be negotiated explicitly and repeatedly, as desire for involvement may change over time. Caregiver involvement should be negotiated on an individual basis; however, all caregivers should be supported with information about mental disorders and treatment options.</p

Assessment of Medical Students’ Shared Decision-Making in Standardized Patient Encounters

BackgroundShared decision-making, in which physicians and patients openly explore beliefs, exchange information, and reach explicit closure, may represent optimal physician-patient communication. There are currently no universally accepted methods to assess medical students' competence in shared decision-making.ObjectiveTo characterize medical students' shared decision-making with standardized patients (SPs) and determine if students' use of shared decision-making correlates with SP ratings of their communication.DesignRetrospective study of medical students' performance with four SPs.ParticipantsSixty fourth-year medical students.MeasurementsObjective blinded coding of shared decision-making quantified as decision moments (exploration/articulation of perspective, information sharing, explicit closure for a particular decision); SP scoring of communication skills using a validated checklist.ResultsOf 779 decision moments generated in 240 encounters, 312 (40%) met criteria for shared decision-making. All students engaged in shared decision-making in at least two of the four cases, although in two cases 5% and 12% of students engaged in no shared decision-making. The most commonly discussed decision moment topics were medications (n = 98, 31%), follow-up visits (71, 23%), and diagnostic testing (44, 14%). Correlations between the number of decision moments in a case and students' communication scores were low (rho = 0.07 to 0.37).ConclusionsAlthough all students engaged in some shared decision-making, particularly regarding medical interventions, there was no correlation between shared decision-making and overall communication competence rated by the SPs. These findings suggest that SP ratings of students' communication skill cannot be used to infer students' use of shared decision-making. Tools to determine students' skill in shared decision-making are needed