Mutual support between patients and family caregivers in palliative care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients in receipt of palliative care services are often viewed primarily as recipients of support from their family caregiver. There is a dearth of evidence in palliative care on what comprises mutual support between patients and their family caregivers in palliative care. AIM: To identify processes of mutual support between patients and family caregivers in palliative care. DESIGN: Qualitative study comprising semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using grounded theory procedures. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen patients with advanced illness (cancer n = 14, neurodegenerative n = 1) and 21 family caregivers recruited from a large regional-based hospice. RESULTS: Mutual support between patients and family caregivers comprised two primary modes in which support was provided and received. Mutual support involved both patients and family caregivers providing similar types of support to each other, and which typically manifested as emotional support. However, mutual support also occurred when patients reciprocated by providing emotional support to their family caregivers to compensate for other forms of support which they felt no longer able to provide. Patients supported family caregivers by involving them in decision-making for care and both patient and family caregiver preferences were influenced by obligation to their respective other. Mutual support comprised both disclosure and concealment. Involving family caregivers in patient care decision-making was intended by patients to help family caregivers adjust to a caregiving role. CONCLUSIONS: The findings inform the development and delivery of psychosocial interventions for patients and family caregivers in palliative care aimed at facilitating supportive relations between them.

Mutual support between patients and family caregivers in palliative care: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Patients in palliative care are usually conceptualised as recipients of support from family caregivers. Family caregivers in palliative care are typically defined as providers of support to patients. Little is known about reciprocal dimensions of support provision between patients and family caregivers in palliative care. AIM: To identify processes of mutual support between patients and family caregivers in palliative care and factors that contribute to or obstruct mutual support between patients and family caregivers in palliative care. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of original peer-reviewed research published between January 2000 and March 2020. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES. RESULTS: After full-text screening, 10 studies were included. We identified that patients and family caregivers in palliative care can support one another by mutually acknowledging the challenges they face, by remaining positive for one another and by jointly adapting to their changing roles. However, patients and family caregivers may not routinely communicate their distress to each other or reciprocate in distress disclosure. A lack of mutual disclosure pertaining to distress can result in conflict between patients and family caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have focused in whole or in part, on reciprocal dimensions of support provision between patients with advancing non-curable conditions, and their family caregivers in palliative care. Further research is required to identify key domains of mutual support between patients and family caregivers in palliative care.

How do Patients With Advanced Cancer and Family Caregivers Accommodate One Another in Decision-Making? Findings From a Qualitative Study in Specialist Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer commonly involve family caregivers in decision-making for palliative care. However, how patients with advanced cancer and family caregivers accommodate each other in decision-making is unclear. METHODS: A qualitative study in advanced cancer was conducted with 14 patients and 19 family caregivers recruited from two hospices comprising a large regional specialist palliative care service in Ireland. Data comprised semi-structured interviews with participants. The data were analyzed using grounded theory coding procedures. RESULTS: Most patients preferred to make care decisions with their family caregiver or at least involve their family caregiver in care discussions. Patients engaged in shared decision-making because they felt they benefited from caregiver support. Patients accommodated family caregiver preferences out of concern for that person and because they trusted them. Family caregivers accommodated patient preferences because they wanted to honor the patient's wishes and felt a responsibility to protect patient autonomy when they had a close relationship with the patient. Prior conflict between the patient and family caregiver was a barrier to mutual accommodation. Although concealment was used as a mechanism to support accommodation between the patient and family caregiver, both sought to communicate openly with other family members to negate potential conflict between each other and the wider family. CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced cancer and family caregivers in specialist palliative care support one another by accommodating each other's preferences for patient care. Patients with advanced cancer and family caregivers accommodate one another in decision-making out of a sense of responsibility to one another.

Patient and Caregiver Reciprocal Support: Impact on Decision Making in Specialist Palliative Care.

CONTEXT: Patients and informal caregivers in palliative care can reciprocate in supporting one another. However, how reciprocal support among patients and informal caregivers in palliative care impacts on their decision making for care is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To identify how reciprocal support among patients with advanced illness and their informal caregivers in specialist palliative care impacts on their decision making for care. METHODS: Between July 2021 and May 2022, 30 qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 patient and caregiver dyads, seven nondyad caregiver participants and one nondyad patient participant (total n = 36), recruited from a large regional specialist palliative care service. Data were analyzed using Corbin and Strauss grounded theory method. RESULTS: Reciprocal support among patients and informal caregivers was underpinned by obligation and choice. Caregivers who felt obliged to care had difficulty communicating with the patient about the patient's preferences for care and their own wishes for patient care. Patients who felt obliged to accept support from their caregiver tended to minimize caregiver participation in decision making which made caregivers feel disempowered in discussions about patient care. Caregivers tended to be more involved in decision making when caregivers assumed caregiving duties by choice and when the patient did not feel restricted by their reliance on their caregiver. Open communication between patients and caregivers made patients more trusting of their caregiver. CONCLUSION: Patient and caregiver dyadic interventions in specialist palliative care involving decision making need to account for how obligation and choice manifest and function between the patient and caregiver.

Supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers in specialist palliative care: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with advanced illness and their family caregivers can be mutually supportive. However, what facilitates and/or restricts supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers in palliative care remains unclear. We aimed to identify key barriers to and facilitators of supportive relationships between people with advanced illness and family caregivers in specialist palliative care. METHODS: A qualitative study using grounded theory methodology was conducted. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 15 patients with advanced illness and 21 family caregivers purposively and theoretically sampled from a large regional specialist palliative care service. Verbatim transcripts were analysed in line with grounded theory coding procedures. RESULTS: Mutual support was underpinned by mutual concern and understanding. Facilitators of supportive relationships included patients and family caregivers already having a close relationship, caregivers assuming caregiving duties by choice, caregivers feeling competent in a caregiving role, patients valuing caregiver efforts, availability of respite for the caregiver and direct support from healthcare professionals to help both patients and caregivers adjust to advanced illness. Barriers to supportive relationships included absence of support from the wider family, prior mutual conflict between the patient and caregiver, caregivers feeling constrained in their caregiving role and patient and caregiver distress induced by mutual loss. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors at both a micro (eg, relationship based) and mesolevel (eg, assistance from services) impact patient and family caregiver ability to support one another in specialist palliative care. Supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers are mediated by feelings pertaining to both control and loss.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care: a systematic review.

Background: Out-of-hours palliative care is a priority for patients, caregivers and policymakers. Approximately three quarters of the week occurs outside of typical working hours, and the need for support in care of serious and terminal illness during these times is commonplace. Evidence on relevant interventions is unclear. Aim: To review systematically the evidence on the effect of out-of-hours specialist or generalist palliative care for adults on patient and caregiver outcomes, and costs and cost-effectiveness. Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. We searched Embase, MEDLINE [Ovid], Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine [Ovid], PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, EconLit (Ovid), and grey literature published between 1 January 2000 and 12 th November 2019. Studies that comparatively evaluated the effect of out-of-hours specialist or generalist palliative care for adults on patient and caregiver outcomes, and on costs and cost-effectiveness were eligible, irrespective of design. Only English-language studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently examined the returned studies at each stage (title and abstract review, full-text review, and quality assessment). Results: We identified one eligible peer-reviewed study, judged as insufficient quality. Other sources returned no eligible material. The systematic review therefore included no studies. Conclusions: The importance of integrated, 24-hour care for people in line with a palliative care approach is not reflected in the literature, which lacks evidence on the effects of interventions provided outside typical working hours. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018111041.