End of life care for people with dementia and comorbid cancer: recent studies and research gaps.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This narrative review examines recent research on end of life (EOL) care for people with dementia and comorbid cancer, highlighting the complexity and challenge of providing effective EOL care for this group and areas of interest for future research. RECENT FINDINGS: People with cancer and dementia and their family/supporters have more complex care and support needs at EOL that are less well met than those of older adults with cancer alone, including questionable use of aggressive EOL care interventions, poorer access to specialist palliative care teams and poor pain management. Those diagnosed with dementia at the same time as, or after their cancer diagnosis, are at greater risk of aggressive EOL care and EOL cancer treatment and care plans that are not able to meet their care needs as dementia progresses. SUMMARY: There is a lack of research on EOL care for people with cancer and dementia. There is little understanding of what good care for this population looks like and if and how EOL care can best meet the needs of people with cancer and dementia or their carers/supporters. More research is needed to inform improved care for this population.

Researchers' experiences of the design and conduct challenges associated with parallel-group cluster-randomised trials and views on a novel open-cohort design.

BACKGROUND: Two accepted designs exist for parallel-group cluster-randomised trials (CRTs). Closed-cohort designs follow the same individuals over time with a single recruitment period before randomisation, but face challenges in settings with high attrition. (Repeated) cross-sectional designs recruit at one or more timepoints before and/or after randomisation, collecting data from different individuals present in the cluster at these timepoints, but are unsuitable for assessment of individual change over time. An 'open-cohort' design allows individual follow-up with recruitment before and after cluster-randomisation, but little literature exists on acceptability to inform their use in CRTs. AIM: To document the views and experiences of expert trialists to identify: a) Design and conduct challenges with established parallel-group CRT designs,b) Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers to implementation of open-cohort CRTs,c) Methods for minimising, and investigating the impact of, bias in open-cohort CRTs. METHODS: Qualitative consultation via two expert workshops including triallists (n = 24) who had worked on CRTs over a range of settings. Workshop transcripts were analysed using Descriptive Thematic Analysis utilising inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: Two central organising concepts were developed. Design and conduct challenges with established CRT designs confirmed that current CRT designs are unable to deal with many of the complex research and intervention circumstances found in some trial settings (e.g. care homes). Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers of open cohort designs included themes on: approaches to recruitment; data collection; analysis; minimising/investigating the impact of bias; and how open-cohort designs might address or present CRT design challenges. Open-cohort designs were felt to provide a solution for some of the challenges current CRT designs present in some settings. CONCLUSIONS: Open-cohort CRT designs hold promise for addressing the challenges associated with standard CRT designs. Research is needed to provide clarity around definition and guidance on application.

Data resource profile: the virtual international care homes trials archive (VICHTA).

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in care home settings address a range of health conditions impacting older people, but often include a common core of data about residents and the care home environment. These data can be used to inform service provision, but accessing these data can be challenging. Methods: The Virtual International Care Home Trials Archive (VICHTA) collates care home RCTs conducted since 2010, with >100 participants, across multiple conditions, with documented eligibility criteria, initially identified from a scoping review. A Steering Committee comprising contributing trialists oversees proposed uses of fully anonymised data. We characterised available demography and outcomes to inform potential analyses. Data are accessible via application to the Virtual Trials Archives, through a secure online analysis platform. Trial recruitment is ongoing and future expansion will include international studies. Results: The first phase of VICHTA includes data from six UK RCTs, with individual participant data (IPD) on 5,674 residents across 308 care homes. IPD include age, sex, dementia status, length of stay, quality of life, clinical outcome measures, medications, resource use, and care home characteristics, such as funding, case mix, and occupancy. Follow-up ranges between four and sixteen months. Conclusions: VICHTA collates and makes accessible data on a complex and under-represented research population for novel analyses, and to inform design of future studies. Planned expansion to international care home RCTs will facilitate a wider range of research questions. Interested collaborators can submit trial data or request data at http://www.virtualtrialsarchives.org.