Systematic translation and adaptation of the FOCUS program, a USA-based supportive intervention for persons with cancer and their family caregivers, for use in six European countries.

PURPOSE: Having advanced cancer presents many challenges for patients and family caregivers. The FOCUS program is a psychoeducational nurse-led intervention, developed in the USA, to support dyads of patients with cancer and their family caregivers to live with the illness. The program includes a conversation manual and information resources for dyads. We aimed to develop a version of the program for dyads facing advanced cancer in six European countries. METHOD: The Participatory and Iterative Process Framework for Language Adaptation (PIPFLA) was used to guide the translation of the program to the local contexts of Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK. In several rounds, potential program users (e.g., nurses, clinicians, patients, family caregivers) and researchers from all six countries reviewed program materials and advised on adaptations. RESULTS: The PIPFLA process resulted in one European version of the program in different languages (FOCUS +). The FOCUS + conversation manual is uniform across all countries. The main adaptations included additional attention to both family caregiver and patient needs; more emphasis on self-management, advance care planning, and shared responsibilities; discussing the dyad's outlook rather than optimism; addressing the role of nurses as educational rather than therapeutic; and more suggestions to refer dyads to health care professionals for specific care needs. The information resources for dyads were adapted to fit with local contexts. CONCLUSION: The PIPFLA methodology is an efficient and effective framework to thoroughly translate and culturally adapt a complex USA-based program for use in six European countries in collaboration with end users.

Effectiveness of a nurse-delivered (FOCUS+) and a web-based (iFOCUS) psychoeducational intervention for people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers (DIAdIC): study protocol for an international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, millions of people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers are experiencing physical and psychological distress. Psychosocial support and education can reduce distress and prevent avoidable healthcare resource use. To date, we lack knowledge from large-scale studies on which interventions generate positive outcomes for people with cancer and their informal caregivers' quality of life. This protocol describes the DIAdIC study that will evaluate the effectiveness of two psychosocial and educational interventions aimed at improving patient-family caregiver dyads' emotional functioning and self-efficacy. METHODS: We will conduct an international multicenter three-arm randomized controlled trial in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In each country, 156 dyads (936 in total) of people with advanced cancer and their family caregiver will be randomized to one of the study arms: 1) a nurse-led face-to-face intervention (FOCUS+), 2) a web-based intervention (iFOCUS) or 3) a control group (care as usual). The two interventions offer tailored psychoeducational support for patient-family caregiver dyads. The nurse-led face-to-face intervention consists of two home visits and one online video session and the web-based intervention is completed independently by the patient-family caregiver dyad in four online sessions. The interventions are based on the FOCUS intervention, developed in the USA, that addresses five core components: family involvement, optimistic outlook, coping effectiveness, uncertainty reduction, and symptom management. The FOCUS intervention will be adapted to the European context. The primary outcomes are emotional functioning and self-efficacy of the patient and the family caregiver, respectively. The secondary outcomes are quality of life, benefits of illness, coping, dyadic communication, and ways of giving support of the patient and family caregiver. DISCUSSION: DIAdIC aims to develop cost-effective interventions that integrate principles of early palliative care into standard care. The cross-country setup in six European countries allows for comparison of effectiveness of the interventions in different healthcare systems across Europe. By focusing on empowerment of the person with cancer and their family caregiver, the results of this RCT can contribute to the search for cost-effective novel interventions that can relieve constraints on professional healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration on ClinicalTrials.gov on 12/11/2020, identifier NCT04626349 . DATE AND VERSION IDENTIFIER: 20211209_DIAdIC_Protocol_Article.

Development of an advance directive 'communication tool' relevant for patients with advanced cancer in six European countries: Experiences from the ACTION trial.

BACKGROUND: The ACTION trial evaluated the effect of a modified version of the Respecting Choices´ advance care planning programme in patients with advanced cancer in six European countries. For this purpose, an advance directive acceptable for all six ACTION countries to be used for documenting the wishes and preferences of patients and as a communication tool between patients, their caregivers and healthcare staff, was needed. AIM: To describe the development of a multinational cancer specific advance directive, the ´My Preferences form´, which was first based on the 2005 Wisconsin 'Physician Orders of Life Sustaining Treatment´ Form, to be used within the ACTION trial. METHODS: Framework analysis of all textual data produced by members of the international project team during the development of the ACTION advance directives (e.g. drafts, emails, meeting minutes…). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: ACTION consortium members (N = 28) with input from clinicians from participating hospitals (N = 13) and ´facilitators´ (N = 8) who were going to deliver the intervention. RESULTS: Ten versions of the ACTION advance directive, the ´My Preferences form´, were developed and circulated within the ACTION consortium. Extensive modifications took place; removal, addition, modification of themes and modification of clinical to lay terminology. The result was a thematically comprehensive advance directive to be used as a communication tool across the six European countries within the ACTION trial. CONCLUSION: This article shows the complex task of developing an advance directive suitable for cancer patients from six European countries; a process which required the resolution of several cross cultural differences in law, ethics, philosophy and practice. Our hope is that this paper can contribute to a deeper conceptual understanding of advance directives, their role in supporting decision making among patients approaching the end of life and be an inspiration to others wishing to develop a disease-specific advance directive or a standardised multinational advance directive.