Supportive and palliative care needs in advanced non-malignant liver disease: systematic review.

Advanced cirrhosis confers a significant symptom burden and has a 50% 2-year mortality rate in those with decompensated disease. There is increasing demand for supportive and palliative care (SAPC) for these patients, yet no consensus on the best model of delivery. It is necessary to identify the needs of such patients and their carers, and evaluate whether they are being met.A literature search was conducted using key words pertaining to adult patients with liver cirrhosis and their SAPC needs. Study quality was assessed and findings grouped by theme. 51 full texts were selected for inclusion, 8 qualitative studies, 33 quantitative studies, 7 systematic reviews, 2 mixed methods studies and 1 Delphi methods. Key findings were grouped into three main themes: SAPC needs, access to SAPC and models of care.Patients with cirrhosis have significant psychological and physical symptom burden with many unmet needs. These data failed to identify the best service model of care. The impact of specialist palliative care (SPC) referral was limited by small numbers and late referrals. With the majority of studies conducted in the USA, it is unclear how well these findings translate to other healthcare systems. Comparison between hepatology led services and SPC was limited by inconsistent outcome measures and prevented pooling of data sets. These data also had limited evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures. We propose the development of a core outcome set to ensure consistent and meaningful evaluation of the SAPC needs of patients with advanced non-malignant liver cirrhosis.

Understanding how shared decision-making approaches and patient aids influence patients with advanced cancer when deciding on palliative treatments and care: A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced incurable cancer face difficult decisions about palliative treatment options towards their end of life. However, they are often not provided with the appropriate information and support that is needed to make informed decisions. This review aimed to identify contexts and mechanisms associated with communication tools, patient decision-aids and shared decision-making (SDM) approaches that influence patient outcomes. METHODS: We used a realist review method to search for published studies of patients (adults > 18) with advanced cancer who were expected to make a decision about palliative treatment and/or supportive care in consultation with healthcare practitioners. We appraised and synthesised literature describing the contexts of (when and how) decision aids and SDM approaches are used, and how these contexts interact with mechanisms (resources and reasoning) which impact patient outcomes. Stakeholders including academics, palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with lived experience of supporting people with advanced incurable cancer contributed to identifying explanatory accounts. These accounts were documented, analysed and consolidated to contribute to the development of a programme theory. RESULTS: From the 33 included papers, we consolidated findings into 20 explanatory accounts to develop a programme theory that explains key contexts and mechanisms that influence patient and SDM. Contexts include underlying patients' and HCPs' attitudes and approaches. These need to be understood in relation to key mechanisms, including presenting information in multiple formats and providing adequate time and opportunities to prepare for and revisit decisions. Contexts influenced mechanisms which then influence the levels of patient decisional satisfaction, conflict and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Our programme theory highlights mechanisms that are important in supporting shared treatment decisions for advanced noncurative cancer. The findings are informative for developing and evaluating interventions to improve understanding and involvement in SDM for patients with advanced incurable cancer. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We included patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives in four stakeholder meetings. PPI helped to define the scope of the review, identify their unique experiences and perspectives, synthesise their perspectives with our review findings, make decisions about which theories we included in our programme theory and develop recommendations for policy and practice and future research.

Hope and meaning-making in phase 1 oncology trials: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence on patient-participant experiences.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1 drug trials are popular treatment options for patients with advanced disease, despite the greater levels of uncertainty associated with them. However, their meaning and consequences for patient-participants remains under-explored. This review synthesises the qualitative evidence of patients' experiences of participating in phase 1 oncology trials, exploring their decisions to take part and the impacts of these trials on patient wellbeing. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search involving medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords was undertaken in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL, with supplementary searches also conducted. Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two researchers. Included studies were critically appraised and data extracted using standardised forms. Qualitative results were analysed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified across 13 studies: decision-making and joining the trial; experiences of taking part in the trial and hope and coping. Patients primarily joined trials hoping for therapeutic benefits, sentiments which prevailed and shaped their experiences across their trial journey. Rather than indicate therapeutic misconception based on poor understanding, patient perspectives more commonly pointed to differences between hope and expectation and cultural narratives of staying positive, trying everything and trusting in experts. CONCLUSIONS: These findings challenge information-based models of consent, favouring coping frameworks which account for the role of hope and meaning-making during serious illness. Personalised consideration of existential and quality-of-life matters before and during trials is recommended, including palliative and supportive care alternatives to active treatment. REVIEW REGISTRATION: The review was registered with PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD 42020163250).

Symptom burden and lived experiences of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals on the management of malignant bowel obstruction: A qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction occurs in up to 50% of people with advanced ovarian and 15% of people with gastrointestinal cancers. Evaluation and comparison of interventions to manage symptoms are hampered by inconsistent evaluations of efficacy and lack of agreed core outcomes. The patient perspective is rarely incorporated. AIM: To synthesise the qualitative data regarding patient, caregiver and healthcare professionals' views and experience of malignant bowel obstruction to inform the development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of malignant bowel obstruction. DESIGN: A qualitative systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered prospectively (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, CRD42020176393). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2021. Reference lists were screened for further relevant publications, and citation tracking was performed. RESULTS: Nine papers were included, reporting on seven studies which described the views and experiences of malignant bowel obstruction through the perspectives of 75 patients, 13 caregivers and 62 healthcare professionals. Themes across the papers included symptom burden, diverse experiences of interventions, impact on patient quality of life, implications and trajectory of malignant bowel obstruction, mixed experience of communication and the importance of realistic goals of care. CONCLUSION: Some of the most devastating sequelae of malignant bowel obstruction, such as pain and psychological distress, are not included routinely in its clinical or research evaluation. These data will contribute to a wider body of work to ensure the patient and caregiver perspective is recognised in the development of a core outcome set.

End-of-life care for people with severe mental illness: mixed methods systematic review and thematic synthesis of published case studies (the MENLOC study).

OBJECTIVES: People with severe mental illness (SMI) have significant comorbidities and reduced life expectancy. The objective of the review reported in this paper was to synthesise material from case studies relating to the organisation, provision and receipt of care for people with SMI who have an end-of-life (EoL) diagnosis. DESIGN: Systematic review and thematic synthesis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, HMIC, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ASSIA, DARE and Web of Science from inception to December 2019. Supplementary searching for additional material including grey literature along with 62 organisational websites. RESULTS: Of the 11 904 citations retrieved, 42 papers reporting 51 case studies were identified and are reported here. Twenty-five of the forty-two case study papers met seven, or more quality criteria, with eight meeting half or less. Attributes of case study subjects included that just over half were men, had a mean age of 55 years, psychotic illnesses dominated and the EoL condition was in most cases a cancer. Analysis generated themes as follows diagnostic delay and overshadowing, decision capacity and dilemmas, medical futility, individuals and their networks, care provision. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of high-quality intervention studies, this evidence synthesis indicates that cross disciplinary care is supported within the context of established therapeutic relationships. Attention to potential delay and diagnostic overshadowing is required in care provision. The values and preferences of individuals with severe mental illness experiencing an end-of-life condition should be recognised. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018108988.

End of life care for people with severe mental illness: Mixed methods systematic review and thematic synthesis (the MENLOC study).

BACKGROUND: Parity of esteem means that end-of-life care for people with severe mental illness should be of equal quality to that experienced by all. AIM: To synthesise international, English language, research and UK policy and guidance relating to the organisation, provision, and receipt of end-of-life care for people with severe mental illness. DESIGN: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted following the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre approach and informed by a stakeholder group. We employed thematic synthesis to bring together data from both qualitative and quantitative studies, and from non-research material. We assessed the strength of synthesised findings using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approaches. DATA SOURCES: Ten electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2019, along with 62 organisational websites. Quality appraisal was conducted using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists or other study design-specific alternatives as necessary. RESULTS: Of the 11,904 citations retrieved, 34 research publications were included plus 28 non-research items. The majority of research was of high or acceptable quality. An overarching synthesis including 52 summary statements, with assessments of confidence in the underpinning evidence, was produced using four themes: Structure of the system; Professional issues; Contexts of care; and Living with severe mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for services and practice reflect evidence in which there is a high degree of confidence. Partnership should be developed across the mental health and end-of-life systems, and ways found to support people to die where they choose. Staff caring for people with severe mental illness at the end-of-life need education, support and supervision. End-of-life care for people with severe mental illness requires a team approach, including advocacy. Proactive physical health care for people with severe mental illness is needed to tackle problems of delayed diagnosis.

Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership.

The importance of linking evidence into practice and policy is recognised as a key pillar of a prudent approach to healthcare; it is of importance to healthcare professionals and decision-makers across the world in every speciality. However, rapid access to evidence to support service redesign, or to change practice at pace, is challenging. This is particularly so in smaller specialties such as Palliative Care, where pressured multidisciplinary clinicians lack time and skill sets to locate and appraise the literature relevant to a particular area. Therefore, we have initiated the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS), a knowledge transfer partnership through which we have developed a clear methodology to conduct evidence reviews to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care.PaCERS methodology utilises modified systematic review methods as there is no agreed definition or an accepted methodology for conducting rapid reviews. This paper describes the stages involved based on our iterative recent experiences and engagement with stakeholders, who are the potential beneficiaries of the research. Uniquely, we emphasise the process and opportunities of engagement with the clinical workforce and policy-makers throughout the review, from developing and refining the review question at the start through to the importance of demonstrating impact. We are faced with the challenge of the trade-off between the timely transfer of evidence against the risk of impacting on rigour. To address this issue, we try to ensure transparency throughout the review process. Our methodology aligns with key principles of knowledge synthesis in defining a process that is transparent, robust and improving the efficiency and timeliness of the review.Our reviews are clinically or policy driven and, although we use modified systematic review methods, one of the key differences between published review processes and our review process is in our relationship with the requester. This streamlining approach to synthesising evidence in a timely manner helps to inform decisions faced by clinicians and decision-makers in healthcare settings, supporting, at pace, knowledge transfer and mobilisation.

Systematic review of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for older smokers from deprived backgrounds.

INTRODUCTION: The associations between smoking prevalence, socioeconomic group and lung cancer outcomes are well established. There is currently limited evidence for how inequalities could be addressed through specific smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) for a lung cancer screening eligible population. This systematic review aims to identify the behavioural elements of SCIs used in older adults from low socioeconomic groups, and to examine their impact on smoking abstinence and psychosocial variables. METHOD: Systematic searches of Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo and CINAHL up to November 2018 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of SCIs and their impact on relevant outcomes including smoking abstinence, quit motivation, nicotine dependence, perceived social influence and quit determination. Included studies were restricted to socioeconomically deprived older adults who are at (or approaching) eligibility for lung cancer screening. Narrative data synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable, with most studies using self-reported smoking cessation and varying length of follow-up. There were limited data to identify the optimal form of behavioural SCI for the target population. Intense multimodal behavioural counselling that uses incentives and peer facilitators, delivered in a community setting and tailored to individual needs indicated a positive impact on smoking outcomes. CONCLUSION: Tailored, multimodal behavioural interventions embedded in local communities could potentially support cessation among older, deprived smokers. Further high-quality research is needed to understand the effectiveness of SCIs in the context of lung screening for the target population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018088956.

Methods of assessing late radiotherapy effects on bowel function.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pelvic radiation disease in the form of chronic radiation-induced consequences of treatment is under recognized by healthcare professionals and under reported by patients. Gastrointestinal symptoms are not routinely assessed, and may not be causally associated with previous radiotherapy. These symptoms are therefore often under treated. RECENT FINDINGS: A literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, which included Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid Embase for articles published between 2016 and April 2018. A total of 11 articles were selected for review. A wide range of patient reported outcome measure instruments are used in research and practice. Clinical symptom grading is restricted to a fewer number of tools but may not always capture issues, such as urgency, that are important to the patient. Clinician and patient concordance in the assessment of outcomes is limited. Initiatives to prompt communication of the relative risks of the late consequences of treatment and comparative effectiveness of treatments decisions are developing, as are new techniques to limit irradiation of healthy tissue. SUMMARY: Nonstandardized outcome measurement reduces the ability to aggregate toxicity and patient outcomes across clinical trials. The development of standardized screening and treatment algorithms for gastrointestinal symptoms can systematically locate and treat gastrointestinal late effects of treatment.

Pharmacist-led interventions to reduce unplanned admissions for older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: medication problems are thought to cause between 10 and 30% of all hospital admissions in older people. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions led by hospital or community pharmacists in reducing unplanned hospital admissions for older people. METHODS: eighteen databases were searched with a customised search strategy. Relevant websites and reference lists of included trials were checked. Randomised controlled trials were included that evaluated pharmacist-led interventions compared with usual care, with unplanned admissions or readmissions as an outcome. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. RESULTS: twenty-seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified; seven trials were excluded. The 20 included trials comprised 16 for older people and 4 for older people with heart failure. Interventions led by hospital pharmacists (seven trials) or community pharmacists (nine trials) did not reduce unplanned admissions in the older population (risk ratios 0.97 95% CI: 0.88, 1.07; 1.07 95% CI: 0.96, 1.20). Three trials in older people with heart failure showed that interventions delivered by a hospital pharmacist reduced the relative risk of admissions. However, these trials were heterogeneous in intensity and duration of follow-up. One trial had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: evidence from three randomised controlled trials suggests that interventions led by hospital pharmacists reduce unplanned hospital admissions in older patients with heart failure, although these trials were heterogeneous. Data from 16 trials do not support the concept that interventions led by hospital or community pharmacists for the general older population reduces unplanned admissions.

Differing community responses to similar public health threats: a cross-disciplinary systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: The way in which different communities respond to similar threats to their health can vary, from outrage to indifference and public health agencies are often taken by surprise leading to potential loss of public confidence. The objective of this systematic literature review was to seek to better understand the community-level drivers that might explain the variability in response. METHODS: A vigorous systematic cross-disciplinary literature review was undertaken searching thirteen bibliographic databases and a variety of grey sources were screened. The social amplification of risk framework and the risk perception management theoretical models were used to assess evidence and data were synthesised by Narrative review. FINDINGS: Sixteen studies meeting the agreed inclusion criteria described eleven different threats ranging from: infectious disease outbreaks to environmental disasters to cancer clusters, affecting two or more communities were identified from medical, psychological, social science and environmental science literature. There was wide heterogeneity between the type and quality of the studies. There was a general absence of theoretical underpinning community responses. Most studies did not report sufficient data to allow an appropriate amount of validity. Very low response rates in particular were common. Potential explanatory drivers suggested included, prior experience and visibility of threat, sociodemographic characteristics, volume and type of media coverage, government reaction and availability of social support. CONCLUSIONS: This review confirmed that there are significant differences. Further work is needed to develop theoretical models that apply to the community level and do not assume that a community's response is simply the aggregate of individual level responses.

Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures.

BACKGROUND: Achieving informed consent is a core clinical procedure and is required before any surgical or invasive procedure is undertaken.  However, it is a complex process which requires patients be provided with information which they can understand and retain, opportunity to consider their options, and to be able to express their opinions and ask questions.  There is evidence that at present some patients undergo procedures without informed consent being achieved. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on patients, clinicians and the healthcare system of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare treatments and procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases using keywords and medical subject headings: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 5, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to July 2011), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to July 2011) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2011). We applied no language or date restrictions within the search. We also searched reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures. We considered an intervention to be intended to promote informed consent when information delivery about the procedure was enhanced (either by providing more information or through, for example, using new written materials), or if more opportunity to consider or deliberate on the information was provided. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed the search output independently to identify potentially-relevant studies, selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the included trials, and meta-analyses of outcomes where there were sufficient data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 randomised controlled trials from 12 countries involving patients undergoing a variety of procedures in hospitals. Nine thousand and twenty one patients were randomised and entered into these studies. Interventions used various designs and formats but the main data for results were from studies using written materials, audio-visual materials and decision aids. Some interventions were delivered before admission to hospital for the procedure while others were delivered on admission.Only one study attempted to measure the primary outcome, which was informed consent as a unified concept, but this study was at high risk of bias.  More commonly, studies measured secondary outcomes which were individual components of informed consent such as knowledge, anxiety, and satisfaction with the consent process.  Important but less commonly-measured outcomes were deliberation, decisional conflict, uptake of procedures and length of consultation.Meta-analyses showed statistically-significant improvements in knowledge when measured immediately after interventions (SMD 0.53 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) I(2) 73%), shortly afterwards (between 24 hours and 14 days) (SMD 0.68 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.93) I(2) 85%) and at a later date (15 days or more) (SMD 0.78 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.06) I(2) 82%). Satisfaction with decision making was also increased (SMD 2.25 (95% CI 1.36 to 3.15) I(2) 99%) and decisional conflict was reduced (SMD -1.80 (95% CI -3.46 to -0.14) I(2) 99%). No statistically-significant differences were found for generalised anxiety (SMD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) I(2) 82%), anxiety with the consent process (SMD 0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.23) I(2) 70%) and satisfaction with the consent process (SMD 0.12 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.32) I(2) 76%). Consultation length was increased in those studies with continuous data (mean increase 1.66 minutes (95% CI 0.82 to 2.50) I(2) 0%) and in the one study with non-parametric data (control 8.0 minutes versus intervention 11.9 minutes, interquartile range (IQR) of 4 to 11.9 and 7.2 to 15.0 respectively). There were limited data for other outcomes.In general, sensitivity analyses removing studies at high risk of bias made little difference to the overall results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent is an important ethical and practical part of patient care.  We have identified efforts by researchers to investigate interventions which seek to improve information delivery and consideration of information to enhance informed consent.  The interventions used consistently improve patient knowledge, an important prerequisite for informed consent.  This is encouraging and these measures could be widely employed although we are not able to say with confidence which types of interventions are preferable. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the high levels of heterogeneity associated with many of the main analyses although we believe there is broad evidence of beneficial outcomes for patients with the pragmatic application of interventions. Only one study attempted to measure informed consent as a unified concept.