'Sadly I think we are sort of still quite white, middle-class really' - Inequities in access to bereavement support: Findings from a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Voluntary and community sector bereavement services are central to bereavement support in the UK. AIM: To determine service providers' perspectives on access to their support before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Mixed methods study using an explanatory sequential design: (1) Cross-sectional online survey of UK bereavement services; (2) Qualitative interviews with staff and volunteers at selected services. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: 147 services participated in the survey; 24 interviews were conducted across 14 services. RESULTS: 67.3% of services reported there were groups with unmet needs not accessing their services before the pandemic; most frequently people from minoritised ethnic communities (49%), sexual minority groups (26.5%), deprived areas (24.5%) and men (23.8%). Compared with before the pandemic, 3.4% of services were seeing more people from minoritised ethnic groups, while 6.1% were seeing fewer. 25.2% of services did not collect ethnicity data. Qualitative findings demonstrated the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on minoritised ethnic communities, including disruption to care/mourning practices, and the need for culturally appropriate support. During the pandemic outreach activities were sometimes deprioritised; however, increased collaboration was also reported. Online provision improved access but excluded some. Positive interventions to increase equity included collecting client demographic data; improving outreach, language accessibility and staff representation; supporting other professionals to provide bereavement support; local collaboration and co-production. CONCLUSIONS: Service providers report inequities in access to bereavement support. Attention needs to be paid to identifying, assessing and meeting unmet needs for appropriate bereavement support. Identified positive interventions can inform service provision and research.

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.

Development of guidelines to reduce, handle and report missing data in palliative care trials: A multi-stakeholder modified nominal group technique.

BACKGROUND: Missing data can introduce bias and reduce the power, precision and generalisability of study findings. Guidelines on how to address missing data are limited in scope and detail, and poorly implemented. AIM: To develop guidelines on how best to (i) reduce, (ii) handle and (iii) report missing data in palliative care clinical trials. DESIGN: Modified nominal group technique. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patient and public research partners, palliative care clinicians, trialists, methodologists and statisticians attended a 1-day workshop, following which a multi-stakeholder development group drafted the guidelines. RESULTS: Seven main recommendations for reducing missing data, nine for handling missing data and twelve for reporting missing data were developed. The top five recommendations were: (i) train all research staff on missing data, (ii) prepare for missing data at the trial design stage, (iii) address missing data in the statistical analysis plan, (iv) collect the reasons for missing data and (v) report descriptive statistics comparing the baseline characteristics of those with missing and observed data. Reducing missing data, preparing for missing data and understanding the reasons for missing data were greater priorities for stakeholders than how to deal with missing data once they had occurred. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive guidelines on how to address missing data were developed by stakeholders involved in palliative care trials. Implementation of the guidelines will require endorsement of research funders and research journals.

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.

The range and suitability of outcome measures used in the assessment of palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction, a complication of certain advanced cancers, causes severe symptoms which profoundly affect quality of life. Clinical management remains complex, and outcome assessment is inconsistent. AIM: To identify outcomes evaluating palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction, as part of a four-phase study developing a core outcome set. DESIGN: The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019150648). Eligible studies included at least one subgroup with obstruction below the ligament of Treitz undergoing palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Study quality was not assessed because the review does not evaluate efficacy. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, PSYCinfo Caresearch, Open Grey and BASE were searched for trials and observational studies in October 2021. RESULTS: A total of 4769 studies were screened, 290 full texts retrieved and 80 (13,898 participants) included in a narrative synthesis; 343 outcomes were extracted verbatim and pooled into 90 unique terms across six domains: physiological, nutrition, life impact, resource use, mortality and survival. Prevalent outcomes included adverse events (78% of studies), survival (54%), symptom control (39%) and mortality (31%). Key individual symptoms assessed were vomiting (41% of studies), nausea (34%) and pain (33%); 19% of studies assessed quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment focuses on survival, complications and overall symptom control. There is a need for definitions of treatment 'success' that are meaningful to patients, a more consistent approach to symptom assessment, and greater consideration of how to measure wellbeing in this population.

Do palliative care patients and relatives think it would be acceptable to use Bispectral index (BIS) technology to monitor palliative care patients' levels of consciousness? A qualitative exploration with interviews and focus groups for the I-CAN-CARE research programme.

BACKGROUND: Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring uses electroencephalographic data as an indicator of patients' consciousness level. This technology might be a useful adjunct to clinical observation when titrating sedative medications for palliative care patients. However, the use of BIS in palliative care generally, and in the UK in particular, is under-researched. A key area is this technology's acceptability for palliative care service users. Ahead of trialling BIS in practice, and in order to ascertain whether such a trial would be reasonable, we conducted a study to explore UK palliative care patients' and relatives' perceptions of the technology, including whether they thought its use in palliative care practice would be acceptable. METHODS: A qualitative exploration was undertaken. Participants were recruited through a UK hospice. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted with separate groups of palliative care patients, relatives of current patients, and bereaved relatives. We explored their views on acceptability of using BIS with palliative care patients, and analysed their responses following the five key stages of the Framework method. RESULTS: We recruited 25 participants. There were ten current hospice patients in three focus groups, four relatives of current patients in one focus group and one individual interview, and eleven bereaved relatives in three focus groups and two individual interviews. Our study participants considered BIS acceptable for monitoring palliative care patients' consciousness levels, and that it might be of use in end-of-life care, provided that it was additional to (rather than a replacement of) usual care, and patients and/or family members were involved in decisions about its use. Participants also noted that BIS, while possibly obtrusive, is not invasive, with some seeing it as equivalent to wearable technological devices such as activity watches. CONCLUSIONS: Participants considered BIS technology might be of benefit to palliative care as a non-intrusive means of assisting clinical assessment and decision-making at the end of life, and concluded that it would therefore be acceptable to trial the technology with patients.

Parental perspectives on the grief and support needs of children and young people bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative findings from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many children and young people have experienced the death of close family members, whilst also facing unprecedented disruption to their lives. This study aimed to investigate the experiences and support needs of bereaved children and young people from the perspective of their parents and guardians. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional qualitative free-text data from a survey of adults bereaved in the UK during the pandemic. Participants were recruited via media, social media, national associations and community/charitable organisations. Thematic analysis was conducted on free text data collected from parent/guardian participants in response to a survey question on the bereavement experiences and support needs of their children. RESULTS: Free-text data from 104 parent/guardian participants was included. Three main themes were identified: the pandemic-related challenges and struggles experienced by children and young people; family support and coping; and support from schools and services. Pandemic-challenges include the impacts of being separated from the relative prior to their death, isolation from peers and other family members, and disruption to daily routines and wider support networks. Examples were given of effective family coping and communication, but also of difficulties relating to parental grief and children's existing mental health problems. Schools and bereavement organisations' provision of specialist support was valued, but there was evidence of unmet need, with some participants reporting a lack of access to specialist grief or mental health support. CONCLUSION: Children and young people have faced additional strains and challenges associated with pandemic bereavement. We recommend resources and initiatives that facilitate supportive communication within family and school settings, adequate resourcing of school and community-based specialist bereavement/mental health services, and increased information and signposting to the support that is available.

Factors Associated With Higher Levels of Grief and Support Needs Among People Bereaved During the Pandemic: Results from a National Online Survey.

We identified factors associated with higher levels of grief and support needs among 711 people bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (deaths 16 March 2020-2 January 2021). An online survey assessed grief using the Adult Attitude to Grief (AAG) scale, which calculates an overall index of vulnerability (IOV) (range 0-36), and practical and emotional support needs in 13 domains. Participants' mean age was 49.5 (SD 12.9); 628 (88.6%) female. Mean age of deceased 72.2 (SD 16.1). 311 (43.8%) deaths were from confirmed/suspected COVID-19. High overall levels of grief and support needs were observed; 28.2% exhibited severe vulnerability (index of vulnerability ≥24). Grief and support needs were higher for close relationships with the deceased (vs. more distant) and reported social isolation and loneliness (p < 0.001), and lower when age of deceased was above 40-50. Other associated factors were place of death and health professional support post-death (p < 0.05).

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.

Development and user-testing of a brief decision aid for aspirin as a preventive approach alongside colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Several epidemiological and cohort studies suggest that regular low-dose aspirin use independently reduces the long-term incidence and risk of colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 20%. However, there are also risks to aspirin use, mainly gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic stroke. Making informed decisions depends on the ability to understand and weigh up benefits and risks of available options. A decision aid to support people to consider aspirin therapy alongside participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme may have an additional impact on colorectal cancer prevention. This study aims to develop and user-test a brief decision aid about aspirin to enable informed decision-making for colorectal screening-eligible members of the public. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative study to develop an aspirin decision aid leaflet to support bowel screening responders in deciding whether to take aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The iterative development process involved two focus groups with public members aged 60-74 years (n = 14) and interviews with clinicians (n = 10). Interviews (n = 11) were used to evaluate its utility for decision-making. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach. RESULTS: Overall, participants found the decision aid acceptable and useful to facilitate decision-making. They expressed a need for individualised risk information, more detail about the potential risks of aspirin, and preferred risk information presented in pictograms when offered different options. Implementation pathways were discussed, including the possibility of involving different clinicians in the process such as GPs and/or community pharmacists. A range of potentially effective timepoints for sending out the decision aid were identified. CONCLUSION: An acceptable and usable decision aid was developed to support decisions about aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer.

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.

HIDDEN2: Study protocol for the hospital deep vein thrombosis detection study in patients with cancer receiving palliative care.

INTRODUCTION: Medical patients, admitted acutely to hospital, are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Clinical guidelines advise thromboprophylaxis prophylaxis for those at high risk of VTE. VTE is a common sequela of cancer, but guidelines take little consideration of cancer as an independent risk factor and their utility in palliative care patients is unclear. The hospice inpatient deep vein thrombosis (DVT) detection study (HIDDen) reported a 28% prevalence of asymptomatic iliofemoral DVT in hospice patients of poor performance status (PS) and prognosis, calling into question the utility of thromboprophylaxis in the palliative care setting. However, the majority of cancer inpatients receiving palliative care are admitted to hospital through the acute medical setting, yet their risk factors for VTE may differ from those admitted to hospices. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the prevalence and behaviours of VTE in patients with cancer receiving palliative care who are admitted as an acute medical emergency. DESIGN: Multicentre, observational cohort study. SETTING: Secondary care acute hospitals in South Wales, UK. PATIENTS: We plan to recruit 232 patients≥18 years old with a diagnosis of incurable cancer, and/or receiving palliative or best supportive care who are admitted acutely to hospital. Patients will be followed up for a maximum of 6 months following registration. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Presence of lower extremity DVT. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Symptom burden attributed to DVT or pulmonary embolism, patient PS, patient demographics and development of new VTE within 90 days of registration. ANALYSIS: The study statistical analysis plan will document analysis, methodology and procedures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee, reference 22/WA/0037 (IRAS 306352)-the main trial results will be analysed as soon as practically possible and the publication shared with investigators and on sponsor website; applications to access trial data will be subject to sponsor review process.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for the research and assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction is experienced by 15% of people with advanced cancer, preventing them from eating and drinking and causing pain, nausea and vomiting. Surgery is not always appropriate. Management options include tube or stent drainage of intestinal contents and symptom control using medication. Published literature describing palliative interventions uses a broad range of outcome measures, few of which are patient-relevant. This hinders evidence synthesis, and fails to consider the perspectives of people undergoing treatment. AIMS: To develop a Core Outcome Set for the assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction with clinician, patient and caregiver involvement, using COMET methodology (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials). METHODS: A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, a rapid review of the qualitative literature and in-depth patient and clinician interviews were conducted to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Outcomes were compared and consolidated by the study Steering Group and Patient and Public Involvement contributors, and presented to an international clinical Expert Panel for review. Outcomes from the finalised list were rated for importance in a three-round international Delphi process: results of two survey rounds were circulated to respondents, and two separate consensus meetings were conducted with clinicians and with patients and caregivers via virtual conferencing, using live polling to reach agreement on a Core Outcome Set. RESULTS: 130 unique outcomes were identified. Following the independent Expert Panel review, 82 outcomes were taken into round 1 of the Delphi survey; 24 outcomes reached criteria for critical importance across all stakeholder groups and none reached criteria for dropping. All outcomes rated critically important were taken forward for re-rating in round 2 and all other outcomes dropped. In round 2, all outcomes were voted critically important by at least one stakeholder group. Round 2 outcomes were presented again at online consensus meetings, categorised as high ranking (n = 9), middle ranking (n = 7) or low ranking (n = 8). Stakeholders reached agreement on 16 core outcomes across four key domains: Symptom control, Life impact, Treatment outcomes, and Communication and patient preferences. CONCLUSION: Use of this Core Outcome Set can help to address current challenges in making sense of the evidence around treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction to date, and underpin a more robust future approach. Clearer communication and an honest understanding between all stakeholders will help to provide a basis for responsible decision-making in this distressing situation in clinical practice.

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.

'It was brutal. It still is': a qualitative analysis of the challenges of bereavement during the COVID-19 pandemic reported in two national surveys.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a devastating, mass bereavement event characterised by high levels of disruption to end-of-life, grieving and coping processes. Quantitative evidence is emerging on the effects of the pandemic on grief outcomes, but rich qualitative evidence on the lived experiences of people bereaved during these times is lacking. Methods: We analysed qualitative data from two independent UK-wide online surveys to describe the experiences of 881 people bereaved during the pandemic. We analysed the data in two phases, conducting an inductive thematic analysis and then applying Stroebe and Schut's Dual Process Model (DPM) and concepts of loss-oriented and restoration-oriented coping (1999; 2010) as an analytic lens to further contextualise and interpret the data. Results: We identified six main themes: troubled deaths; mourning, memorialisation and death administration; mass bereavement, the media and the ongoing threat of the pandemic; grieving and coping; work and employment; and support from the health and social care system. Examples of loss-oriented stressors included being unable to visit and say goodbye at the end of life and restricted funeral and memorialisation practices. Associated reactions were feelings of guilt, anger, and problems accepting the death and beginning to grieve. Examples of restoration-oriented stressors and reactions were severely curtailed support-systems and social/recreational activities, which impacted people's ability to cope. Conclusion: Study results demonstrate the exceptionally difficult sets of experiences associated with pandemic bereavement, and the utility of the DPM for conceptualising these additional challenges and their impacts on grieving. Our analysis builds and expands on previous use of the DPM in explicating the impact of the pandemic on bereavement. We make recommendations for statutory, private and third sector organisations for improving the experiences of people bereaved during and following this and future pandemics.

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.

Using the United Kingdom standards for public involvement to evaluate the impact of public involvement in a multinational clinical study.

BACKGROUND: The publication of the United Kingdom (UK) Standards for Public Involvement (PI) (UK Standards) in research drew a clear line in the sand regarding the importance of utilising the unique experience, skills and expertise that lay people may offer to the development, conduct and dissemination of clinical research. The UK Standards provide a benchmark which researchers should aim to achieve, yet its implementation continues to be a step wise iterative process of change management. A recent evaluation by a regional research group has suggested that our understanding of PI is enhanced through reflection on the UK Standards. We report on the utility of PI in the design, conduct and dissemination of the HIDDen study, a national, multicentre clinical study based across three UK centres. METHODS: A retrospective review of PI within the HIDDen study was conducted using field notes taken by the lead author from interactions throughout their involvement as a lay representative on the study. Key members of the HIDDen study were interviewed and data analysed to explore adherence to the UK Standards. RESULTS: There was universal support for PI across the study management group with genuine inclusivity of lay members of the committee. All six of the UK Standards were met to varying degrees. The greatest opportunities lay in 'working together' and 'support and learning'. There were challenges meeting 'governance' with evidence of participation in decision making but less evidence of opportunities in management, regulation, leadership. CONCLUSION: This study concurs with previous research supporting the utility of the Standards in the conduct and evaluation of PI in clinical research. To our knowledge this is the first multi-national study to be evaluated against the UK Standards.

The past decade has seen a genuine increase in patient and public involvement (PI) in clinical research, far beyond a symbolic presence on a trial management committee or inclusion on a grant application. The United Kingdom (UK) Standards for Public Involvement provide a useful structure to support PI throughout a study as well as defining a benchmark that can be used to improve the involvement of patients and the public in studies.The importance of reflecting on and reporting on PI in specific studies has been recognised since it contributes to a stepwise change process which will eventually lead to PI becoming normal practice for clinical research. A recent review identified a myriad of frameworks by which PI may be evaluated, risking an inconsistent approach to PI evaluation and consequently slowing down its progression.The Hospice Inpatient Deep vein thrombosis Detection study (HIDDen) was a national multicentre study to explore the prevalence and associated variables of blood clots in patients with advanced cancer when they were admitted to the specialist palliative care unit.In this paper we will be considering the HIDDen research in terms of the UK Standards for Public Involvement.

Development of a core outcome set to use in the research and assessment of malignant bowel obstruction: protocol for the RAMBO study.

INTRODUCTION: Studies regarding the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) report conflicting findings. This is partly due to different outcome measures being used to evaluate severity of MBO and the response to treatments. Furthermore, current outcome measures focus mainly on measurable physiological parameters which may not correlate strongly with patient-defined quality of life. The development of core outcome sets allows a consistent approach to evaluating clinical conditions taking into consideration patient, healthcare professional and researcher viewpoints. It follows an internationally recognised standard methodology. We present a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for Research and Assessment of MBO (RAMBO). METHODS: RAMBO is a multicentre study, comprising of four phases: a systematic review to examine current scope of outcome measures associated with MBO (phase I). Interviews with patients, companions and healthcare professionals will explore priorities and preferences for care and outcomes (phase II). An expert panel meeting will collate the findings into a set of outcomes (phase III), refined by consensus through a Delphi survey with key stakeholders (phase IV). The final set of outcomes will be ratified at a consensus meeting. Each step will actively include patient partners. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics will be used to analyse qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained (Wales REC 5, REF: 19/LO/1876). Study participants and relevant stakeholders will be updated with newsletters and a lay summary at the end of the study. Abstracts will be submitted to national and international conferences, result papers will be submitted to peer-reviewed, open access journals. TRIAL AND PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (1402); Systematic Literature Review (CRD42019150648); Rapid Review (CRD42020176393).