Development, Testing, and Implementation of the Belgian Patient Reported Experience Measure for Pancreatic Cancer Care (PREPARE) Project: Protocol for a Multi-Method Research Project.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pancreatic cancer do not feel involved in the development of their treatment and care plans. In Belgium, these plans are decided on during multidisciplinary team meetings. However, limited time is spent on the discussion of the preferences of the patient during these meetings. This research project aims to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for pancreatic cancer and assess if its use can support collaborative treatment decision-making. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to outline the protocol for a multi-method research project to improve person-centered pancreatic cancer care in Belgium. Three subobjectives are pursued: (1) to develop a PREM to assess the experiences of care-related aspects in pancreatic cancer care, (2) to validate the PREM, and (3) to develop and evaluate an educational intervention to support the use of the PREM's results. METHODS: For the development of the PREM, an exploratory mixed methods study design will be used. The study will start with a survey followed by a telephone interview involving patients with pancreatic cancer and digestive oncology health care professionals. Study two is the testing of the content and construct validity of the PREM. Study three involves the implementation study according to the Medical Research Council framework of a complex intervention introducing the PREM in practice. The effectiveness of the intervention will be investigated using a pragmatic randomized controlled trial study design. RESULTS: The protocol presents the entire structure of the research project. Ethics approval to conduct the exploratory mixed methods study (objective 1) has been obtained, and recruitment has started since January 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The poor prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer should not be considered a hurdle to not study this patient population group. Involving patients in the research and decision-making processes early on is key. This project aims to realize a scientifically sound research process providing research outputs that can easily and timely be implemented in the care trajectory of patients with pancreatic cancer. This research project will also lead to recommendations on how to involve patients with pancreatic cancer and how the methodology of this research project can be translated to other patient groups. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/29004.

Building Bridges, Paediatric Palliative Care in Belgium: A secondary data analysis of annual paediatric liaison team reports from 2010 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: Although continuity of care in paediatric palliative care (PPC) is considered to be an essential element of quality of care, it's implementation is challenging. In Belgium, five paediatric liaison teams (PLTs) deliver palliative care. A Royal Decree issued in 2010 provides the legal framework that defines the PLTs' missions, as ensuring continuity of curative and palliative care between the hospital and home for children diagnosed with life-limiting conditions. This national study describes how PLTs ensure continuity of care by describing their activities and the characteristics of the children they cared for from 2010 to 2014. METHODS: Thematic analysis of open-ended questions was performed and descriptive statistics of aggregated data issued from annual reports, collected by the Belgian Ministry of Public Health through the Cancer Plan was used. A review panel of PLT members discussed the results and contributed to their interpretation. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2014, 3607 children and young adults (0-21 years) were cared for by the 5 Belgian PLTs (mean of 721/per year). Of these children, 50% were diagnosed with an oncological disease, 27% with a neurological or metabolic disease. Four hundred and twenty eight (428) children had died. For 51% of them, death took place at home. PLT activities include coordination; communication; curative and palliative care; education; research and fundraising. Different perceptions of what constitutes a palliative stage, heterogeneity in reporting diagnosis and the current lack of specific valid indicators to report PPC activities were found. CONCLUSION: PLTs are offering highly individualised, flexible and integrated care from diagnosis to bereavement in all care settings. Improvements in data registration and implementation of outcome measures are foreseen.

Symptom Clusters in People Living with HIV Attending Five Palliative Care Facilities in Two Sub-Saharan African Countries: A Hierarchical Cluster Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Symptom research across conditions has historically focused on single symptoms, and the burden of multiple symptoms and their interactions has been relatively neglected especially in people living with HIV. Symptom cluster studies are required to set priorities in treatment planning, and to lessen the total symptom burden. This study aimed to identify and compare symptom clusters among people living with HIV attending five palliative care facilities in two sub-Saharan African countries. METHODS: Data from cross-sectional self-report of seven-day symptom prevalence on the 32-item Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form were used. A hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted using Ward's method applying squared Euclidean Distance as the similarity measure to determine the clusters. Contingency tables, X2 tests and ANOVA were used to compare the clusters by patient specific characteristics and distress scores. RESULTS: Among the sample (N=217) the mean age was 36.5 (SD 9.0), 73.2% were female, and 49.1% were on antiretroviral therapy (ART). The cluster analysis produced five symptom clusters identified as: 1) dermatological; 2) generalised anxiety and elimination; 3) social and image; 4) persistently present; and 5) a gastrointestinal-related symptom cluster. The patients in the first three symptom clusters reported the highest physical and psychological distress scores. Patient characteristics varied significantly across the five clusters by functional status (worst functional physical status in cluster one, p<0.001); being on ART (highest proportions for clusters two and three, p=0.012); global distress (F=26.8, p<0.001), physical distress (F=36.3, p<0.001) and psychological distress subscale (F=21.8, p<0.001) (all subscales worst for cluster one, best for cluster four). CONCLUSIONS: The greatest burden is associated with cluster one, and should be prioritised in clinical management. Further symptom cluster research in people living with HIV with longitudinally collected symptom data to test cluster stability and identify common symptom trajectories is recommended.

Are there differences in the prevalence of palliative care-related problems in people living with advanced cancer and eight non-cancer conditions? A systematic review.

CONTEXT: If access to effective palliative care is to extend beyond cancer patients, an understanding of the comparative prevalence of palliative care problems among cancer and non-cancer patients is necessary. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to describe and compare the prevalence of seventeen palliative care-related problems across the four palliative care domains among adults with advanced cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, chronic heart failure, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, Parkinson's disease, and dementia. METHODS: Three databases were searched using three groups of keywords. The results of the extraction of the prevalence figures were summarized. RESULTS: The electronic searches yielded 4697 hits after the removal of 1784 duplicates. Of these hits, 143 met the review criteria. The greatest number of studies were found for advanced cancer (n=57) and ESRD patients (n=47), and 75 of the 143 studies used validated scales. Few data were available for people living with multiple sclerosis (n=2) and motor neuron disease (n=3). The problems with a prevalence of 50% or more found across most of the nine studied diagnostic groups were: pain, fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, and worry. CONCLUSION: There are commonalities in the prevalence of problems across cancer and non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for palliative care to be provided irrespective of diagnosis. The methodological heterogeneity across the studies and the lack of non-cancer studies need to be addressed in future research.

Learning from the public: citizens describe the need to improve end-of-life care access, provision and recognition across Europe.

BACKGROUND: Despite ageing populations and increasing cancer deaths, many European countries lack national policies regarding palliative and end-of-life care. The aim of our research was to determine public views regarding end-of-life care in the face of serious illness. METHODS: Implementation of a pan-European population-based survey with adults in England, Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Three stages of analysis were completed on open-ended question data: (i) inductive analysis to determine a category-code framework; (ii) country-level manifest deductive content analysis; and (iii) thematic analysis to identify cross-country prominent themes. RESULTS: Of the 9344 respondents, 1543 (17%) answered the open-ended question. Two prominent themes were revealed: (i) a need for improved quality of end-of-life and palliative care, and access to this care for patients and families and (ii) the recognition of the importance of death and dying, the cessation of treatments to extend life unnecessarily and the need for holistic care to include comfort and support. CONCLUSIONS: Within Europe, the public recognizes the importance of death and dying; they are concerned about the prioritization of quantity of life over quality of life; and they call for improved quality of end-of-life and palliative care for patients, especially for elderly patients, and families. To fulfil the urgent need for a policy response and to advance research and care, we suggest four solutions for European palliative and end-of-life care: institute government-led national strategies; protect regional research funding; consider within- and between-country variance; establish standards for training, education and service delivery.

Choosing care homes as the least preferred place to die: a cross-national survey of public preferences in seven European countries.

BACKGROUND: Care homes are increasingly becoming places where people spend the final stages of their lives and eventually die. This trend is expected to continue due to population ageing, yet little is known about public preferences regarding this setting. As part of a larger study examining preferences and priorities for end of life care, we investigated the extent to which care homes are chosen as the least preferred place of death, and the factors associated with this negative preference. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey among 9,344 adults from random private households in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. We asked participants where they would least prefer to die in a situation of serious illness with less than one year to live. Multivariate binary logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with choosing care homes as the least preferred place of death in each country. RESULTS: Care homes were the most frequently mentioned least preferred place of death in the Netherlands (41.5%), Italy and Spain (both 36.7%) and the second most frequent in England (28.0%), Portugal (25.8%), Germany (23.7%) and Flanders (18.9%). Only two factors had a similar and significant effect on the least preferred place of death in more than one country. In Germany and the Netherlands those doing housework were less likely to choose care homes as their least preferred place (AOR 0.72; 95% CI:0.54-0.96 and AOR 0.68; 95% CI:0.52-0.90 respectively), while those born in the country where the survey took place were more likely to choose care homes (AOR 1.77; 95% CI:1.05-2.99 and AOR 1.74; 95% CI:1.03-2.95 respectively). Experiences of serious illness, death and dying were not associated with the preference. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest it might be difficult to promote care homes as a good place to die. This is an urgent research area in order to meet needs and preferences of a growing number of older people with chronic, debilitating conditions across Europe. From a research perspective and in order to allow people to be cared for and die where they wish, our findings highlight the need to build more in depth evidence on reasons underlying this negative preference.