Cost-effectiveness of a specialist palliative care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional case conference for patients with non-oncological palliative care needs: results of the KOPAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, progressive chronic, non-malignant diseases are highly prevalent. Especially with increasing age, they are characterised by high hospitalisation rates and high healthcare costs. Improved interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams might reduce hospitalisation while improving symptoms and quality of life, or preventing them from deterioration. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of a newly developed intervention in patients with advanced chronic, non-malignant diseases consisting of a structured palliative care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference. METHODS: The analysis was based on data from 172 participants of the KOPAL multi-centre, cluster randomised controlled trial. Patients with advanced congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or dementia were randomised into intervention group (IG) and control group (CG, usual care). Cost-effectiveness was examined over 48 weeks from a societal and healthcare payer's perspective. Effects were quantified as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, EQ-5D-5L). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed. RESULTS: Baseline imbalances in costs and effects could be observed between IG and CG. After adjusting for these imbalances and compared to the CG, mean costs in the IG were non-significantly higher from a societal and lower from a payer's perspective. On the effect side, the IG had marginally lower mean QALYs. The results were characterized by high statistical uncertainty, indicated by large confidence intervals for the cost and effect differences between groups and probabilities of cost-effectiveness between 18% and 65%, depending on the perspective and willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, the cost-effectiveness of the KOPAL intervention was uncertain. The results highlighted (methodological) challenges of economic evaluations in patients with chronic, non-malignant diseases related to sample size, heterogeneity of participants, and the way the intervention effectiveness is typically captured in economic evaluations.

Quality of life, psychological burden, needs, and satisfaction during specialized inpatient palliative care in family caregivers of advanced cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: This pilot study aimed to investigate quality of life, psychological burden, unmet needs, and care satisfaction in family caregivers of advanced cancer patients (FCs) during specialized inpatient palliative care (SIPC) and to test feasibility and acceptance of the questionnaire survey. METHODS: During a period of 12 weeks, FCs were recruited consecutively within 72 h after the patient's admission. They completed validated scales on several outcomes: quality of life (SF-8), distress (DT), anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), supportive needs (FIN), palliative care outcome (POS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE-2). We used non-parametric tests, t-tests and correlation analyses to address our research questions. RESULTS: FCs showed high study commitment: 74 FCs were asked to participate whereof 54 (73%) agreed and 51 (69%) returned the questionnaire. Except for "bodily pain", FCs' quality of life (SF-8) was impaired in all subscales. Most FCs (96%) reported clinically significant own distress (DT), with sadness, sorrows and exhaustion being the most distressing problems (80-83%). Moderate to severe anxiety (GAD-7) and depression (PHQ-9) were prevalent in 43% and 41% of FCs, respectively. FCs scored a mean number of 16.3 of 20 needs (FIN) as very or extremely important (SD 3.3), 20% of needs were unmet in >50% of FCs. The mean POS score assessed by FCs was 16.6 (SD 5.0) and satisfaction (FAMCARE-2) was high (73.4; SD 8.3). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of the questionnaire survey and showed relevant psychosocial burden and unmet needs in FCs during SIPC. However, FCs' satisfaction with SIPC seemed to be high. A current multicenter study evaluates these findings longitudinally in a large cohort of FCs.

Comparison of two self-rating instruments for medication adherence assessment in hypertension revealed insufficient psychometric properties.

OBJECTIVE: In cases of insufficiently controlled blood pressure, it is important for practitioners to distinguish between "nonadherence" and "nonresponse" to antihypertensive drug treatment. A reliable and valid adherence measurement based on the patient's self-report may be helpful in daily practice. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a primary care sample with 353 hypertensive patients, we applied two self-rating instruments to assess medication adherence (the "Hill-Bone Compliance to High Blood Pressure Therapy Scale" and Morisky's "Self-Reported Measure of Medication Adherence") and compared their psychometric properties. RESULTS: Both scales showed low acceptability and insufficiency to moderate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.25 and 0.73, respectively). Their convergent validity as indexed by kappa=0.39 could be judged as "fair" at best. Testing the power to predict blood pressure >140/90mmHg, both scales showed an accuracy of 57% and 62%, respectively. The positive likelihood, that is, the increase in likelihood of high blood pressure in cases of nonadherence was 1.00 and 1.32, respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of both scales cannot be recommended. They showed considerable floor effects, and their ability to identify medication adherence was inconsistent for nearly every third patient. The power of both scales to predict uncontrolled blood pressure was essentially a chance. The underlying conceptual framework of medication adherence therefore needs to be rethought.