Relationship Status and Quality Are Associated With Perceived Benefits of Caregiving for People With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: "Benefit finding" is a strengths-based strategy for coping with medical illness that may be particularly useful for caregivers of people with heart failure given the highly fluctuating disease course. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate benefit finding's association with the caregiver-care recipient relationship, depression, and burden at baseline and longitudinally. METHODS: This is a longitudinal observational study of caregivers' benefit finding, relationship quality, depression, and burden. Correlation and multiple regression analyses identify baseline associations and predictors of 12-month change in benefit finding. RESULTS: At baseline (n = 100; median, 60 years [interquartile range, 46-69]; 81% female, 70% partner/spouse), increased benefit finding correlated with higher relationship quality (r = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.67), lower depression (r = -0.33; 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.14), and lower burden (r = -0.31; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.11). Twelve-month change in benefit finding was predicted by change in relationship quality (ß = 7.12; 95% CI, 0.62-13.61) but not depression or burden. CONCLUSIONS: Relationship quality and benefit finding changed together over time. Interventions strengthening the caregiver-care recipient bond may be especially impactful for heart failure caregivers.

The Association of Unmet Palliative Care Needs and Physical Frailty With Clinical Outcomes: A Prospective Study of Adults With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: People with heart failure, particularly those who are physically frail, experience complex needs that can be addressed by palliative care (PC). However, we have a limited understanding of how the intersection of unmet PC needs and physical frailty contributes to health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and risk for hospitalization or mortality. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to examine the association of unmet PC needs and physical frailty with clinical outcomes (baseline HRQOL and hospitalizations or mortality at 6 months). METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of community-dwelling persons with heart failure from an urban hospital system who were older than 50 years and hospitalized in the last year. We measured physical frailty using the FRAIL scale (nonfrail, 0-2; frail, 3-5), PC needs using the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (range, 0-58; higher scores indicating higher needs), and HRQOL using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate higher HRQOL). We performed multivariable linear regression to test the relationships between physical frailty, PC needs, and HRQOL, and multivariable logistic regression for associations with all-cause 6-month hospitalization or mortality. We also performed an exploratory analysis of 4 PC needs/frailty groups (high PC needs/frail, high PC needs/nonfrail, low PC needs/frail, low PC needs/nonfrail) with outcomes. RESULTS: In our overall sample (n = 298), mean (SD) age was 68 (9.8) years, 37% were women (n = 108), 28% identified as Black/African American (n = 84), and 65% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (n = 194). Mean PC needs score was 19.7, and frail participants (n = 130, 44%) had a significantly higher mean PC needs score than nonfrail participants (P < .001). Those with higher PC needs (Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale ≥ 20) had significantly worse HRQOL (P < .001) and increased odds of hospitalization or mortality (odds ratio, 2.5; P < .01) compared with those with lower PC needs, adjusting for covariates. Physically frail participants had significantly worse HRQOL (P < .001) and higher odds of hospitalization or mortality at 6 months (odds ratio, 2.6; P < .01) than nonfrail participants, adjusting for covariates. In an exploratory analysis, physically frail participants with high PC needs had the lowest HRQOL score, with an average score of 28.6 points lower (P < .001) and 4.6 times higher odds of hospitalization or mortality (95% confidence interval, 2.03-10.43; P < .001) than low-needs/nonfrail participants. CONCLUSION: Higher unmet PC needs and physical frailty, separately and in combination, were associated with lower HRQOL and higher odds of hospitalization or mortality. Self-reported PC needs and physical frailty assessment in clinical settings may improve identification of patients at the highest risk for poor HRQOL and hospitalization or mortality amenable to PC intervention.

Palliative Care Research and Clinical Practice Priorities in the United States as Identified by an Interdisciplinary Modified Delphi Approach.

Background: Palliative care demands in the United States are growing amid a comparatively small workforce of palliative care clinicians and researchers. Therefore, determining research and clinical practice priorities is essential for streamlining initiatives to advance palliative care science and practice. Objectives: To identify and rank palliative care research and clinical practice priority areas through expert consensus. Design: Using a modified Delphi method, U.S. palliative care experts identified and ranked priority areas in palliative care research and clinical practice. Priorities were thematically grouped and analyzed for topic content and frequency; univariate analysis used the median of each priority item ranking, with a cutoff median of ≤8 indicating >76% agreement for an item's ranking. Results: In total, 27 interdisciplinary pediatric and adult palliative care experts representing 19 different academic institutions and medical centers participated in the preliminary survey and the first Delphi round, and 22 participated in the second Delphi round. The preliminary survey generated 78 initial topics, which were developed into 22 priority areas during the consensus meeting. The top five priorities were (1) access to palliative care, (2) equity in palliative care, (3) adequate financing of palliative care, (4) provision of palliative care in primary care settings, and (5) palliative care workforce challenges. Conclusions: These expert-identified priority areas provide guidance for researchers and practitioners to develop innovative models, policies, and interventions, thereby enriching the quality of life for those requiring palliative care services.