Recommendations from evaluating the implementation of the 'GP Daffodil Standards' to support the provision of palliative and end-of-life care in primary care: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The 'GP Daffodil Standards for Advanced Serious Illness and End of Life Care' was launched by the Royal College of General Practitioners and Marie Curie in 2019 to support improvement of end-of-life care activity in primary care. AIM: To undertake and independent evaluation of the implementation of the Daffodil Standards. METHOD: A multi-method evaluation, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. An online survey with GPs in the UK (Phase 1) and semi-structured interviews with a sub-sample of survey responders (Phase 2) were used to map end-of-life activities and understand the use of the standards. Illustrative case studies of good practice were used to outline recommendations to improve and sustain the implementation of the standards (Phase 3). Data were analysed both quantitatively (Phase 1: descriptive statistics) and qualitatively (Phases 2 and 3: framework analysis). RESULTS: For the Phase 1 survey (n = 82) and Phase 2 semi-structured interviews (n = 8), results demonstrated the motivation to undertake end-of-life care activities and active use of the standards. GPs find it difficult to take this further because of limitations in resources and capacity. There is the indication that a misperception exists for both the purpose and role of the standards. For Phase 3, two case studies are complete, providing more in-depth practical insights into the planning, use, and implementation of the standards. All data collection stopped in December 2023. CONCLUSION: Final results were reported and best practice shared, along with recommendations to sustain the ongoing implementation of the Daffodil Standards.

Prolonged grief during and beyond the pandemic: factors associated with levels of grief in a four time-point longitudinal survey of people bereaved in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a devastating and enduring mass-bereavement event, with uniquely difficult sets of circumstances experienced by people bereaved at this time. However, little is known about the long-term consequences of these experiences, including the prevalence of Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) and other conditions in pandemic-bereaved populations. Methods: A longitudinal survey of people bereaved in the UK between 16 March 2020 and 2 January 2021, with data collected at baseline (n = 711), c. 8 (n = 383), 13 (n = 295), and 25 (n = 185) months post-bereavement. Using measures of Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) (Traumatic Grief Inventory), grief vulnerability (Adult Attitude to Grief Scale), and social support (Inventory of Social Support), this analysis examines how participant characteristics, characteristics of the deceased and pandemic-related circumstances (e.g., restricted visiting, social isolation, social support) are associated with grief outcomes, with a focus on symptoms of PGD. Results: At baseline, 628 (88.6%) of participants were female, with a mean age of 49.5 (SD 12.9). 311 (43.8%) deaths were from confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Sample demographics were relatively stable across time points. 34.6% of participants met the cut-off for indicated PGD at c. 13 months bereaved and 28.6% at final follow-up. Social isolation and loneliness in early bereavement and lack of social support over time strongly contributed to higher levels of prolonged grief symptoms, while feeling well supported by healthcare professionals following the death was associated with reduced levels of prolonged grief symptoms. Characteristics of the deceased most strongly associated with lower levels of prolonged grief symptoms, were a more distant relationship (e.g., death of a grandparent), an expected death and death occurring in a care-home. Participant characteristics associated with higher levels of prolonged grief symptoms included low level of formal education and existence of medical conditions. Conclusion: Results suggest higher than expected levels of PGD compared with pre-pandemic times, with important implications for bereavement policy, provision and practice now (e.g., strengthening of social and specialist support) and in preparedness for future pandemics and mass-bereavement events (e.g., guidance on infection control measures and rapid support responses).

Development of a core outcome set for use in adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials: A mixed methods study.

Background: Glioma interventional studies should collect data aligned with patient priorities, enabling treatment benefit assessment and informed decision-making. This requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting. Development of a core outcome set (COS) may contribute to a solution. Methods: A 5-stage process was used to develop a COS for glioma trials from the UK perspective. Outcome lists were generated in stages 1: a trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies and 2: interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. In stage 3, the outcome lists were de-duplicated with accessible terminology, in stage 4 outcomes were rated via a 2-round Delphi process, and stage 5 comprised a consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified. Results: In Delphi round 1, 96 participants rated 35 outcomes identified in stages 1 and 2, to which a further 10 were added. Participants (77/96) rated the resulting 45 outcomes in round 2. Of these, 22 outcomes met a priori threshold for inclusion in the COS. After further review, a COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into 7 outcome domains (survival, adverse events, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, cognitive function, and physical function) was finalized by 13 participants at the consensus meeting. Conclusions: A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising 7 outcome domains. Additional research will identify appropriate measurement tools and further validate this COS.

"I don't want to hear statistics, I want real life stories": Systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient and caregiver experiences of Proton Beam Therapy.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) is an advanced form of radiotherapy, yet little evidence exists on patient experience to inform decision making and improve future care. We thematically synthesized the qualitative evidence of patient and caregivers' perceptions and experiences of PBT. LITERATURE SEARCH: Five electronic databases were systematically searched, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords. Two reviewers independently screened search results for qualitative studies relating to patients' and caregivers' experiences of PBT. The search generated 4,020 records, of which nine were eligible. Study quality (assessed by CASP checklist) varied. DATA SYNTHESIS: Qualitative results were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Three main themes were generated: decision making and perceptions, living in the PBT "bubble," and coping with the cancer treatment journey. CONCLUSIONS: PBT is not yet widely accessible worldwide, which uniquely influences the patient experience. Our review uncovers areas PBT providers could target to improve patient-centered care; however, additional primary qualitative research is recommended.

Development of a core outcome set and identification of patient-reportable outcomes for primary brain tumour trials: protocol for the COBra study.

INTRODUCTION: Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021236979.

Breaking bad news in a cross-language context: A qualitative study to develop a set of culturally and linguistically appropriate phrases and techniques with Zulu speaking cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Breaking bad news (BBN) in healthcare is common. Guidelines abound but little is documented in an African context. We wanted to describe Zulu speaking patients' BBN experience and assess their opinions of internationally recommended techniques. METHODS: BBN techniques were highlighted from the literature using systematic review methods. Semi-structured focus group interviews with Zulu speaking cancer patients were conducted. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Language concordance was central - regardless of whether this necessitated a nurse acting as translator. While non-abandonment, empathy and maintenance of hope was valued by participants, an oft-expressed belief in positive outcomes accounted for mixed responses to phrases implying ambiguity. In contrast, "I wish" phrases were appreciated. Silence received mixed responses with a strong dislike for silence as a front for non-disclosure. CONCLUSION: Language-related concerns dictated the bulk of participants BBN perspectives. While cultural and linguistic differences exist, good communication skills, empathy and the maintenance of hope remain central. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: BBN in a language in which the patient is fluent, whether mediated or not, should be the standard of care. Cultural and linguistic variance must be born in mind and clinicians should become familiar with the preferences of the communities they serve.

Early palliative interventions for improving outcomes in people with a primary malignant brain tumour and their carers.

BACKGROUND: Primary malignant brain tumours can have an unpredictable course, but high-grade gliomas typically have a relentlessly progressive disease trajectory. They can cause profound symptom burden, affecting physical, neurocognitive, and social functioning from an early stage in the illness. This can significantly impact on role function and on the experiences and needs of informal caregivers. Access to specialist palliative and supportive care early in the disease trajectory, for those with high-grade tumours in particular, has the potential to improve patients' and caregivers' quality of life. However, provision of palliative and supportive care for people with primary brain tumours - and their informal caregivers - is historically ill-defined and ad hoc, and the benefits of early palliative interventions have not been confirmed. It is therefore important to define the role and effectiveness of early referral to specialist palliative care services and/or the effectiveness of other interventions focused on palliating disease impact on people and their informal caregivers. This would help guide improvement to service provision, by defining those interventions which are effective across a range of domains, and developing an evidence-based model of integrated supportive and palliative care for this population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence base for early palliative care interventions, including referral to specialist palliative care services compared to usual care, for improving outcomes in adults diagnosed with a primary brain tumour and their carers. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of electronic databases, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (last searched 16 November 2021). We conducted searches to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative search terms. In addition to this, we searched for any currently recruiting trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, and undertook citation tracking via Scopus. We also handsearched reference lists of potentially eligible systematic review articles to identify any other relevant studies, contacted experts in the field and searched key authors via Web of Science and searched SIGLE (System of Information on Grey Literature in Europe). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies looking at early referral to specialist palliative care services - or early targeted palliative interventions by other healthcare professionals - for improving quality of life, symptom control, psychological outcomes, or overall survival as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies (NRS), as well as qualitative and mixed-methods studies where both qualitative and quantitative data were included. Participants were adults with a confirmed radiological and/or histological diagnosis of a primary malignant brain tumour, and/or informal adult carers (either at individual or family level) of people with a primary malignant brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data extraction, management, and analysis. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for symptom control, i.e. cognitive function. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 9748 references from the searches, with 8337 remaining after duplicates were removed. After full-text review, we included one trial. There were no studies of early specialist palliative care interventions or of early, co-ordinated generalist palliative care approaches. The included randomised trial addressed a single symptom area, focusing on early cognitive rehabilitation, administered within two weeks of surgery in a mixed brain tumour population, of whom approximately half had a high-grade glioma. The intervention was administered individually as therapist-led computerised exercises over 16 one-hour sessions, four times/week for four weeks. Sessions addressed several cognitive domains including time orientation, spatial orientation, visual attention, logical reasoning, memory, and executive function. There were no between-group differences in outcome for tests of logical-executive function, but differences were observed in the domains of visual attention and verbal memory. Risk of bias was assessed and stated as high for performance bias and attrition bias but for selective reporting it was unclear whether all outcomes were reported. We considered the certainty of the evidence, as assessed by GRADE, to be very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is a lack of research focusing on the introduction of early palliative interventions specifically for people with primary brain tumours, either as co-ordinated specialist palliative care approaches or interventions focusing on a specific aspect of palliation. Future research should address the methodological shortcomings described in early palliative intervention studies in other cancers and chronic conditions. In particular, the specific population under investigation, the timing and the setting of the intervention should be clearly described and the standardised palliative care-specific components of the intervention should be defined in detail.

Support needs and barriers to accessing support: Baseline results of a mixed-methods national survey of people bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is a mass bereavement event which has profoundly disrupted grief experiences. Understanding support needs and access to support among people bereaved at this time is crucial to ensuring appropriate bereavement support infrastructure. AIM: To investigate grief experiences, support needs and use of formal and informal bereavement support among people bereaved during the pandemic. DESIGN: Baseline results from a longitudinal survey. Support needs and experiences of accessing support are reported using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of free-text data. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 711 adults bereaved in the UK between March and December 2020, recruited via media, social media, national associations and community/charitable organisations. RESULTS: High-level needs for emotional support were identified. Most participants had not sought support from bereavement services (59%, n = 422) or their General-Practitioner (60%, n = 428). Of participants who had sought such support, over half experienced difficulties accessing bereavement services (56%, n = 149)/General-Practitioner support (52%, n = 135). About 51% reported high/severe vulnerability in grief; among these, 74% were not accessing bereavement or mental-health services. Barriers included limited availability, lack of appropriate support, discomfort asking for help and not knowing how to access services. About 39% (n = 279) experienced difficulties getting support from family/friends, including relational challenges, little face-to-face contact and disrupted collective mourning. The perceived uniqueness of pandemic bereavement and wider societal strains exacerbated their isolation. CONCLUSIONS: People bereaved during the pandemic have high levels of support needs alongside difficulties accessing support. We recommend increased provision and tailoring of bereavement services, improved information on support options and social/educational initiatives to bolster informal support and ameliorate isolation.

Chemotherapy decision-making in advanced lung cancer: a prospective qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To study how treatment decisions are made alongside the lung cancer clinical pathway. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, multimethods, five-stage, qualitative study. Mediated discourse, thematic, framework and narrative analysis were used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: 51 health professionals, 15 patients with advanced lung cancer, 15 family members and 18 expert stakeholders were recruited from three UK NHS trusts. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) members constructed treatment recommendations around patient performance status, pathology, clinical information and imaging. Information around patients' social context, needs and preferences were limited. The provisional nature of MDTs treatment recommendations was not always linked to future discussions with the patient along the pathway, that is, patients' interpretation of their prognosis, treatment discussions occurring prior to seeing the oncologist. This together with the rapid disease trajectory placed additional stress on the oncologist, who had to introduce a different treatment option from that recommended by the MDT or patient's expectations. Palliative treatment was not referred to explicitly as such, due to its potential for confusion. Patients were unaware of the purpose of each consultation and did not fully understand the non-curative intent of treatment pathways. Patients' priorities were framed around social and family needs, such as being able to attend a family event. CONCLUSION: Missed opportunities for information giving, affect both clinicians and patients; the pathway for patients with non-small cell lung cancer focuses on clinical management at the expense of patient-centred care. Treatment decisions are a complex process and patients draw conclusions from healthcare interactions prior to the oncology clinic, which prioritises aggressive treatment and influences decisions.

The impacts and effectiveness of support for people bereaved through advanced illness: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Bereavement support is a key component of palliative care, with different types of support recommended according to need. Previous reviews have typically focused on specialised interventions and have not considered more generic forms of support, drawing on different research methodologies. AIM: To review the quantitative and qualitative evidence on the effectiveness and impact of interventions and services providing support for adults bereaved through advanced illness. DESIGN: A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis of quantitative results and thematic synthesis of qualitative results. The review protocol is published in PROSPERO ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero , CRD42016043530). DATA SOURCES: The databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Social Policy and Practice were searched from 1990 to March 2019. Studies were included which reported evaluation results of bereavement interventions, following screening by two independent researchers. Study quality was assessed using GATE checklists. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies were included, reporting on bereavement support groups, psychological and counselling interventions and a mix of other forms of support. Improvements in study outcomes were commonly reported, but the quality of the quantitative evidence was generally poor or mixed. Three main impacts were identified in the qualitative evidence, which also varied in quality: 'loss and grief resolution', 'sense of mastery and moving ahead' and 'social support'. CONCLUSION: Conclusions on effectiveness are limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneity in study populations, models of care and outcomes. The qualitative evidence suggests several cross-cutting benefits and helps explain the impact mechanisms and contextual factors that are integral to the support.

Coping and wellbeing in bereavement: two core outcomes for evaluating bereavement support in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Bereavement support is a core part of palliative care. However, the evidence base is limited by a lack of consistency in the outcomes used to evaluate services and models of support, which makes it difficult to compare approaches. Core Outcome Sets (COS) represent the minimum that should be measured in research into specific conditions or services. The aim of this study was to use a stakeholders' perspective to develop a COS for evaluating bereavement support for adults in adult palliative care settings. METHODS: A list of outcomes relevant to bereavement support was created following a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative literature. At an expert workshop 21 stakeholders discussed their views on the most important outcomes and compared these to and critiqued the lists constructed from the review. These lists and discussions informed a two round international DELPHI survey (n = 240) designed to reach consensus on which outcomes/outcome dimensions should be included in the COS. To prioritise and validate the items emerging from the survey, participants at a subsequent consensus day ranked the relative importance of these items (n = 23). A final feedback exercise with these consensus day participants was conducted to confirm the selection of outcomes and dimensions. RESULTS: 'Ability to cope with grief' and 'Quality of life and mental wellbeing' were selected as two core outcomes. Twenty-one different dimensions to explore when assessing these outcomes were also identified. The coping related dimensions have been categorised as: Negative and overwhelming grief; Communication and connectedness; Understanding, accepting and finding meaning in grief; Finding balance between grief and life going forwards; Accessing appropriate support. Those relating to quality of life and wellbeing have been categorised as; Participation in work and/or regular activities; Relationships and social functioning; Positive mental wellbeing and Negative mental and emotional state. CONCLUSION: This COS outlines a more consistent way forward for bereavement researchers and practitioners, whilst also orientating towards public health and resilience-based approaches to bereavement care. Further work is planned to identify and develop measures which are specific to this core outcome set, and which will facilitate the future comparability of bereavement services and interventions.

Considerations and recommendations for conducting qualitative research interviews with palliative and end-of-life care patients in the home setting: a consensus paper.

OBJECTIVES: To present and discuss the views of researchers at an academic palliative care research centre on research encounters with terminally ill patients in the home setting and to generate a list of recommendations for qualitative researchers working in palliative and end-of-life care. METHODS: Eight researchers took part in a consensus meeting to discuss their experiences of undertaking qualitative interviews. The researchers were of varying backgrounds and all reported having experience in interviewing terminally ill patients, and all but one had experience of interviewing patients in their home environment. RESULTS: The main areas discussed by researchers included: whether participation in end-of-life research unintentionally becomes a therapeutic experience or an ethical concern; power relationships between terminally ill patients and researchers; researcher reflexivity and reciprocity; researchers' training needs. Qualitative methods can complement the home environment; however, it can raise ethical and practical challenges, which can be more acute in the case of research undertaken with palliative and patients at the end-of-life. CONCLUSIONS: The ethical and practical challenges researchers face in this context has the potential to place both participant and researcher at risk for their physical and psychological well-being. We present a set of recommendations for researchers to consider prior to embarking on qualitative research in this context and advocate researchers in this field carefully consider the issues presented on a study-by-study basis.

Palliative care research centre's move into social media: constructing a framework for ethical research, a consensus paper.

BACKGROUND: Social media (SM) have altered the way we live and, for many, the way we die. The information available on even the rarest conditions is vast. Free from restrictions of mobility, time and distance, SM provides a space for people to share experiences of illness, death and dying, and potentially benefit from the emotional and practical support of others n similar positions. The communications that take place in these spaces also create large amounts of 'data' which, for any research centre, cannot be ignored. However, for a palliative care research centre the use of this 'data' comes with specific ethical dilemmas. METHODS: This paper details the process that we, as a research, went through in constructing a set of ethical guidelines by which to work. This involved conducting two consensus days; one with researchers from within the centre, and one with the inclusion of external researchers with a specific interest in SM. RESULTS: The primary themes that emerged from the consensus meetings includes; SM as a public or private space; the status of open and closed groups; the use of historical data; recruiting participants and obtaining informed consent and problems of anonymity associated with dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: These are the themes that this paper will focus on prior to setting out the guidelines that we subsequently constructed.

Symptom management, nutrition and hydration at end-of-life: a qualitative exploration of patients', carers' and health professionals' experiences and further research questions.

BACKGROUND: Symptom management is an essential aspect of palliative and end-of-life care, but evidence suggests that patients' symptoms may not always be relieved, causing significant harm to patients and magnifying their relatives' distress. A growing body of evidence focuses on symptom management at the end-of-life, but research funding for palliative care remains disproportionately low. It is therefore crucial that research funding is targeted at areas of importance to patients and relatives. The Palliative and end-of-life care Priority Setting Partnership (PeolcPSP) undertook a UK-wide free-text survey to establish research priorities within palliative and end-of-life care and disseminated its results in 2015. Much of the data were related more broadly to personal perceptions and experiences rather than specific research questions. The aim of this article is to report on a supplementary analysis exploring the experiences and questions of PeolcPSP survey respondents regarding symptoms, hydration and nutrition. METHODS: The PeolcPSP data (n = 1403) were coded by a team of qualitative researchers in a supplementary analysis. There were 190 responses that related to symptoms, nutrition and hydration. The data were analysed thematically using Braun and Clarke's approach. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: pain, breathlessness, agitation, nutrition and hydration. The majority of responses related to symptoms that were sub-optimally managed, in particular pain. Nutrition and hydration were of significant concern, particularly for carers. Overall, respondents consistently asked about the most effective, evidence-based methods for managing symptoms and suggested areas where further research is necessary. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the perceptions and experiences of patients, families and professionals within palliative care, highlighting the need for improved care, communication and further research to establish which treatments are most effective within a palliative care population. This is essential to reduce harm and distress for patients and families.

Managing, making sense of and finding meaning in advanced illness: a qualitative exploration of the coping and wellbeing experiences of patients with lung cancer.

Coping plays an essential role in maintaining the wellbeing of patients with cancer. A number of different coping responses and strategies have been identified in the literature. The value and relevance of meaning based coping theory has also been emphasised, including Antonovosky's Sense of Coherence (SoC) theory. Ten patients with advanced lung cancer were interviewed up to three times. A total of twenty in depth interviews were carried out, fully transcribed and data were analysed following a methodology of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Three broad domains were identified to categorise the core life concerns of participants; making sense of and managing one's illness; maintaining daily life and relationships and confronting the future. Within these domains multiple coping themes are identified, which to varying degrees help to maintain patient wellbeing and quality of life. This article considers the relevance of SoC theory for understanding the coping experiences of patients with advanced cancer, and identifies resources and factors likely to support patient coping, with implications for health and social care services.

Development of an intervention to support patients and clinicians with advanced lung cancer when considering systematic anticancer therapy: protocol for the PACT study.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-centred care is essential to the delivery of healthcare; however, this necessitates direct patient involvement in clinical decision-making and can be challenging for patients diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer where there may be misunderstanding of the extent of disease, prognosis and aims of treatment. In this context, decisions are complex and there is a need to balance the risks and benefits, including treatment with palliative intent. The aim of the PACT study is to identify the information and decision support needs of patients, leading to the development of an intervention to support patients with advanced lung cancer when considering treatment options. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PACT is a five-stage, multimethod and multicentre study. Participants: Patients and health professionals will be recruited from three health boards. Methods: Non-participant observation of multidisciplinary team meetings (n=12) will be used to determine patients' allocation to treatment pathways (stage I). Non-participant observation of patient-clinician consultations (n=20-30) will be used to explore communication of treatment options and decision-making. Extent of participation in decision-making will be assessed using the Observing Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making tool. Interviews with patients (stage III) and their clinicians (stage IV) will explore the perception of treatment options and involvement in decision-making. Based on stages I-IV, an expert consensus meeting will finalise the content and format of the intervention. Cognitive interviews with patients will then determine the face validity of the intervention (stage V). Analysis: analysis will be according to data type and research question and will include mediated discourse analysis, thematic analysis, framework analysis and interpretative phenomenological analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted. The study findings will contribute to and promote shared and informed decision-making in the best interest of patients and prudent healthcare. We therefore aim to disseminate results via relevant respiratory, oncology and palliative care journals and conferences.

"I didn't really understand it, I just thought it'd help": exploring the motivations, understandings and experiences of patients with advanced lung cancer participating in a non-placebo clinical IMP trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have explored in depth the experiences of patients with advanced cancer who are participating in clinical investigational medicinal product trials. However, integrated qualitative studies in such trials are needed to enable a broader evaluation of patient experiences in the trial, with important ethical and practical implications for the design and conduct of similar trials and treatment regimes in the future. METHODS: Ten participants were recruited from the control and intervention arms of FRAGMATIC: a non-placebo trial for patients with advanced lung cancer. Participants were interviewed at up to three time points during their time in the trial. Interviews were analysed using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS: Patients were motivated to join the trial out of hope of medical benefit and altruism. Understanding of randomisation was mixed and in some cases poor, as was appreciation of trial purpose and equipoise. The trial was acceptable to and evaluated positively by most participants; participants receiving the intervention focused on the potential treatment benefits they hoped they would receive, whilst participants in the control arm found alternative reasons, such as altruism, personal fulfilment and positive attention, to commit to and perceive benefits from the trial. However, whilst experiences were generally very positive, poor understanding, limited engagement with trial information and focus on treatment benefits amongst some participants give cause for concern. CONCLUSIONS: By exploring longitudinally the psychological, emotional and cognitive domains of trial participation, we consider potential harms and benefits of participation in non-placebo trials amongst patients with advanced lung cancer and identify several implications for future research with and care for patients with advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN80812769 . Registered on 8 July 2005.

The preferences and perspectives of family caregivers towards place of care for their relatives at the end-of-life. A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Home is often reported as the preferred place of care for patients at the end-of-life. The support of family caregivers is crucial if this is to be realised. However, little is known about their preferences; a greater understanding would identify how best to support families at the end-of-life, ensuring more patients are cared for in their preferred location. OBJECTIVES: To systematically search and synthesise the qualitative literature exploring the preferences and perspectives of family caregivers towards place of care for their relatives at the end-of-life. METHODS: Ten databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, Social Care Online, Cochrane Database, Scopus, Web of Science) and reference lists of key journals were searched up to January 2014. Included studies were appraised for quality and data thematically synthesised. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included; all were of moderate or high quality. Two main themes were identified: (1) Preferences and perspectives: most family caregivers preferred home care, although a range of perspectives were reported. Both positive and negative perspectives of home, hospices and hospitals emerged. At times, family caregivers reported feeling obligated to provide home care. (2) Impact of facilitating home care; both positive and negative effects on family caregivers were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Many family caregivers reported home as the preferred place of care; other places of care were infrequently considered. Healthcare professionals and service providers should be aware of these preferences and provide support where needed to enable family caregivers to successfully care at home, thus improving end-of-life experiences for families as a whole.

A feasibility study to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial to identify the most clinically effective and cost-effective length of Anticoagulation with Low-molecular-weight heparin In the treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (ALICAT).

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is common in cancer patients and requires anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Current data recommend LMWH for anticoagulation as far as 6 months, yet guidelines recommend LMWH beyond 6 months in patients who have ongoing or active cancer. This recommendation, based on expert consensus, has not been evaluated in a clinical study. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify the most clinically and cost-effective length of anticoagulation with LMWH in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT); (2) to identify practicalities of conducting a full randomised controlled trial (RCT) with regard to recruitment, retention and outcome measurement; and (3) to explore the barriers for progressing to a full RCT. DESIGN: The Anticoagulation with Low-molecular-weight heparin In the treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (ALICAT) trial is a randomised, multicentre, feasibility mixed-methods study with three components: (1) a RCT comparing ongoing LMWH treatment for CAT with cessation of LMWH at 6 months' treatment (current licensed practice) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer, consulted in three clinical settings (haematology outpatients, oncology outpatients and primary care); (2) a nested qualitative study, including focus groups with clinicians to investigate attitudes for recruiting to the study and identify the challenges of progressing to a full RCT, and semistructured interviews with patients and relatives to explore their attitudes towards participating in the study, and potential barriers and concerns to participation; and (3) a UK-wide survey exercise to develop a classification and enumeration system for the CAT models and pathways of care. SETTING: A haematology outpatients department, an oncology outpatients department and primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with ongoing active or metastatic cancer who have received 6 months of LMWH for CAT. INTERVENTIONS: Ongoing LMWH treatment for CAT versus cessation of LMWH at 6 months' treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (i) The number of eligible patients over 12 months; (ii) the number of recruited patients over 12 months (target recruitment rate of 30% of eligible patients); and (iii) the proportion of randomised participants with recurrent venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) during follow-up. RESULTS: Following several delays in setting up the RCT component of the study, 5 out of 32 eligible patients consented to be randomised to the RCT suggesting progression to a full RCT was not feasible. Reasons for non-consenting were primarily based on a fixed preference for continuing or discontinuing treatment after 6 months of anticoagulation, and a fear of randomisation to their non-preferred option. Views were largely influenced by patients' initial experience of CAT. Focus groups with clinicians revealed that they would be reticent to recruit to such a study as they had fixed views of best management despite the lack of evidence. Patient pathway modelling suggested that there is a broad heterogeneity of practice with respect to CAT management and co-ordination, with no consensus on which specialty should best manage such cases. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the RCT reflect recruitment from the oncology site only and provide no recruitment data from haematology centres. However, it is unlikely that these other sites would have access to more eligible patients. The management of cancer-associated thrombosis beyond 6 months will remain a clinical challenge. As it is unlikely that a prospective study will successfully recruit, other strategies to accrue relevant data are necessary. Currently the LONGHEVA (Long-term treatment for cancer patients with deep-venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) registry is in development to prospectively evaluate this important and common clinical scenario. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as clinical trials.gov number NCT01817257 and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 37913976. FUNDING DETAILS: Funding for the ALICAT trial was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme (10/145/01) in response to a themed funding call. The study was designed in accordance with the initial funding brief and feedback from the review process.

Minimum standards for the certification of patient decision support interventions: feasibility and application.

OBJECTIVE: Patient decision support interventions are not currently subject to standardized quality control. The current study aims to assess the feasibility of applying a proposed set of minimum standards (previously developed as part of a possible certification process) to a selection of existing patient decision support interventions. METHODS: A convenience sample of interventions selected from those included in the 2009 Cochrane systematic review of patient decision aids was scored by trained raters using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) instrument. Scores were then evaluated against the published proposed minimum standards. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of thirty included interventions met all qualifying criteria while only three met the proposed certification criteria. The changes required for an intervention to meet the proposed certification standards were relatively minor. There was considerable variation between raters' mean scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions did not meet the certification criteria due to lack of information on modifiable items such as update policy and funding source. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Specifying minimum standards for patient decision support interventions is a feasible development. However, it remains unclear whether the minimum standards can be applied to interventions designed for use within clinical encounters and to those that target screening and diagnostic tests.