Advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer: A 6-country, cluster-randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015-2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0-3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients' age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients' quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score -1.8 versus -0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the intervention group. A key limitation of the study is that recruitment rates were lower in intervention than in control hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who received usual care. The increased use of specialist palliative care and AD inclusion in hospital files of intervention patients is meaningful and requires further study. Our findings suggest that alternative approaches to support patient-centred end-of-life care in this population are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN63110516.

A mixed-methods study of challenges and benefits of clinical academic careers for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical academic trajectory for doctors and dentists is well-established, with research embedded in their career development. Recent years have also seen a burgeoning interest and push for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) to pursue a clinical academic career. However, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) 10-year review suggested that there may be problems with progression post Master's degree level for this group, with nurses and midwives receiving less NIHR funding than allied health professionals. This study responds to these concerns, tracking the progression and exploring experiences of NMAHPs in the East Midlands region of England. DESIGN: An online survey and in-depth interviews were used to capture a wide range of experiences. PARTICIPANTS: 67 NMAHPs who were pursuing a clinical academic career were surveyed, supplemented by 16 semi-structured in-depth interviews. RESULTS: Three themes emerged during data analysis: Embarking on a clinical academic career, overcoming barriers and benefits. CONCLUSIONS: NMAHPs are motivated to pursue a clinical academic career by a drive to improve services for the benefit of patients and the National Health Service more widely, as well as for personal development and career progression. People working in these roles have opportunities to explore possible solutions to issues that they encounter in their clinical role through academic study. Findings reveal benefits emanating from the individual level through to (inter)national levels, therefore academic study should be encouraged and supported. However, investment is needed to establish more clinical academic roles to enable NMAHPs to continue to use their experience and expertise post-PhD, otherwise the full extent of their value will not be recognised.