Cancer experience in metaphors: patients, carers, professionals, students - a scoping review.

The use of metaphors to talk about cancer experiences has attracted much research and debate, especially in the case of military metaphors. However, questions remain about what metaphors are used by different populations for different aspects of the cancer experience. This scoping review aims to answer them.We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Eligible sources include peer-reviewed scientific research published in English between 2013 and 2023, investigating patterns of metaphor use from adult populations (age ≥18) for cancer-related topics, such as cancer itself, the general experience of being ill, treatment, and people and relationships.Out of 1929 articles identified, 30 met the criteria, spanning over different populations. While most papers focused on cancer in general, some focused on specific cancer types, such as breast cancer. Both spontaneous and elicited data were collected in ten languages: mostly English (N=12), Swedish (N=3) and Arabic (N=3). The identified metaphors were subsumed under various broad categories, including particularly violence and journey. Other categories include education and non-human animate entity for the cancer itself, confinement and deprivation and cleanliness for the general experience of being ill with cancer, Poison and gardening for cancer treatment, and distance for patients' social relationships.It was found that metaphors help to identify how patients describe experiences of vulnerability and empowerment. To provide patient-centred care, clinicians and researchers should avoid blanket conclusions about helpful or unhelpful metaphors, but consider the ways in which different metaphors are used by different populations in different contexts.

Improving shared decision-making about cancer treatment through design-based data-driven decision-support tools and redesigning care paths: an overview of the 4D PICTURE project.

Background: Patients with cancer often have to make complex decisions about treatment, with the options varying in risk profiles and effects on survival and quality of life. Moreover, inefficient care paths make it hard for patients to participate in shared decision-making. Data-driven decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, support personalized care, improve health outcomes and promote health equity. However, decision-support tools currently seldom consider quality of life or individual preferences, and their use in clinical practice remains limited, partly because they are not well integrated in patients' care paths. Aim and objectives: The central aim of the 4D PICTURE project is to redesign patients' care paths and develop and integrate evidence-based decision-support tools to improve decision-making processes in cancer care delivery. This article presents an overview of this international, interdisciplinary project. Design methods and analysis: In co-creation with patients and other stakeholders, we will develop data-driven decision-support tools for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer and melanoma. We will support treatment decisions by using large, high-quality datasets with state-of-the-art prognostic algorithms. We will further develop a conversation tool, the Metaphor Menu, using text mining combined with citizen science techniques and linguistics, incorporating large datasets of patient experiences, values and preferences. We will further develop a promising methodology, MetroMapping, to redesign care paths. We will evaluate MetroMapping and these integrated decision-support tools, and ensure their sustainability using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. We will explore the generalizability of MetroMapping and the decision-support tools for other types of cancer and across other EU member states. Ethics: Through an embedded ethics approach, we will address social and ethical issues. Discussion: Improved care paths integrating comprehensive decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, their significant others and healthcare providers in decision-making and improve outcomes. This project will strengthen health care at the system level by improving its resilience and efficiency.

Improving the cancer patient journey and respecting personal preferences: an overview of the 4D PICTURE project The 4D PICTURE project aims to help cancer patients, their families and healthcare providers better undertstand their options. It supports their treatment and care choices, at each stage of disease, by drawing on large amounts of evidence from different types of European data. The project involves experts from many different specialist areas who are based in nine European countries. The overall aim is to improve the cancer patient journey and ensure personal preferences are respected.

Newspaper coverage of advance care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Content analysis.

COVID-19 may cause sudden serious illness, and relatives having to act on patients' behalf, emphasizing the relevance of advance care planning (ACP). We explored how ACP was portrayed in newspapers during year one of the pandemic. In 'LexisNexis Uni', we identified English-language newspaper articles about ACP and COVID-19, published January-November 2020. We applied content analysis; unitizing, sampling, recording or coding, reducing, inferring, and narrating the data. We identified 131 articles, published in UK (n = 59), Canada (n = 32), US (n = 15), Australia (n = 14), Ireland (n = 6), and one each from Israel, Uganda, India, New-Zealand, and France. Forty articles (31%) included definitions of ACP. Most mentioned exploring (93%), discussing (71%), and recording (72%) treatment preferences; 28% described exploration of values/goals, 66% encouraged engaging in ACP. No false or sensationalist information about ACP was provided. ACP was often not fully described. Public campaigns about ACP might improve the full picture of ACP to the public.

Consensus definition of advance care planning in dementia: A 33-country Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Existing advance care planning (ACP) definitional frameworks apply to individuals with decision-making capacity. We aimed to conceptualize ACP for dementia in terms of its definition and issues that deserve particular attention. METHODS: Delphi study with phases: (A) adaptation of a generic ACP framework by a task force of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC); (B) four online surveys by 107 experts from 33 countries, September 2021 to June 2022; (C) approval by the EAPC board. RESULTS: ACP in dementia was defined as a communication process adapted to the person's capacity, which includes, and is continued with, family if available. We identified pragmatic boundaries regarding participation and time (i.e., current or end-of-life care). Three interrelated issues that deserve particular attention were capacity, family, and engagement and communication. DISCUSSION: A communication and relationship-centered definitional framework of ACP in dementia evolved through international consensus supporting inclusiveness of persons with dementia and their family. HIGHLIGHTS: This article offers a consensus definitional framework of advance care planning in dementia. The definition covers all stages of capacity and includes family caregivers. Particularly important are (1) capacity, (2) family, (3) engagement, and communication. Fluctuating capacity was visualized in relation to roles and engaging stakeholders.

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life: a qualitative interview-study among health care providers on an evolving practice.

BACKGROUND: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) can be used for patients at the end of life who suffer intolerably from severe symptoms that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the Netherlands, the use of CDS is guided by an national guideline since 2005. The percentage of patients for whom CDS is used increased from 8% of all patients who died in 2005 to 18% in 2015. The aim of this study is to explore potential causes of the rise in the use of CDS in the Netherlands according to health care providers who have been participating in this practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants were Dutch health care providers (HCPs), working at patients' homes, hospices, elderly care facilities and in hospitals and experienced in providing CDS, who were recruited via purposeful sampling. RESULTS: 41 Health care providers participated in an interview. For these HCPs the reason to start CDS is often a combination of symptoms resulting in a refractory state. HCPs indicated that symptoms of non-physical origin are increasingly important in the decision to start CDS. Most HCPs felt that suffering at the end of life is less tolerated by patients, their relatives, and sometimes by HCPs; they report more requests to relieve suffering by using CDS. Some HCPs in our study have experienced increasing pressure to perform CDS. Some HCPs stated that they more often used intermittent sedation, sometimes resulting in CDS. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how participating HCPs perceive that their practice of CDS changed over time. The combination of a broader interpretation of refractory suffering by HCPs and a decreased tolerance of suffering at the end of life by patients, their relatives and HCPs, may have led to a lower threshold to start CDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht assessed that the study was exempt from ethical review according to Dutch law (Protocol number 19-435/C).

Experiences and perceptions of continuous deep sedation: An interview study among Dutch patients and relatives.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of continuous deep sedation (CDS) has more than doubled over the last decade in The Netherlands, while reasons for this increase are not fully understood. Patients and relatives have an essential role in deciding on CDS. We hypothesize that the increase in CDS practice is related to the changing role of patients and relatives in deciding on CDS. OBJECTIVE: To describe perceptions and experiences of patients and relatives with regard to CDS. This insight may help professionals and policymakers to better understand and respond to the evolving practice of CDS. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were held with patients and relatives who had either personal experience with CDS as a relative or had contemplated CDS for themselves. RESULTS: The vast majority of respondents appreciated CDS as a palliative care option, and none of the respondents reported (moral) objections to CDS. The majority of respondents prioritized avoiding suffering at the end of life. The patients and families generally considered CDS a palliative care option for which they can choose. Likewise, according to our respondents, the decision to start CDS was made by them, instead of the physician. Negative experiences with CDS care were mostly related to loss of sense of agency, due to insufficient communication or information provision by healthcare professionals. Lack of continuity of care was also a source of distress. We observed a variety in the respondents' understanding of the distinction between CDS and other end-of-life care decisions, including euthanasia. Some perceived CDS as hastening death. CONCLUSION: The traditional view of CDS as a last resort option for a physician to relieve a patient's suffering at the end of life is not explicit among patients and relatives. Instead, our results show that they perceive CDS as a regular palliative care option. Along with this normalization of CDS, patients and relatives claim a substantial say in the decision-making and are mainly motivated by a wish to avoid suffering and exercise control at the end of life. These distinct views on CDS of patients, their relatives and healthcare providers should be reconciled in guidelines and protocols for CDS. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of the authors in our team (G. H.) has experience with CDS as a relative and ensured that the patient/relative viewpoint was adequately reflected in the design and conduct of our study. In the preliminary phase of our study, G. H. adjusted the topic list so it was better adapted to the current practice of CDS. During the data analysis, G. H. read several interviews and took part in the open and critical discussion on central themes and core concepts as an important member of the author team, thereby guaranteeing the central position of the patient/relative perspective in our final research outcome.

Self-efficacy of advanced cancer patients for participation in treatment-related decision-making in six European countries: the ACTION study.

PURPOSE: Many patients prefer an active role in making decisions about their care and treatment, but participating in such decision-making is challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether patient-reported outcomes (quality of life and patient satisfaction), patients' coping strategies, and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We used baseline data from the ACTION trial of patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer from six European countries, including scores on the decision-making participation self-efficacy (DEPS) scale, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire, and the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to examine associations with self-efficacy scores. RESULTS: The sample included 660 patients with a mean age of 66 years (SD 10). Patients had a mean score of 73 (SD 24) for self-efficacy. Problem-focused coping (B 1.41 (95% CI 0.77 to 2.06)), better quality of life (B 2.34 (95% CI 0.89 to 3.80)), and more patient satisfaction (B 7.59 (95% CI 5.61 to 9.56)) were associated with a higher level of self-efficacy. Patients in the Netherlands had a higher level of self-efficacy than patients in Belgium ((B 7.85 (95% CI 2.28 to 13.42)), whereas Italian patients had a lower level ((B -7.50 (95% CI -13.04 to -1.96)) than those in Belgium. CONCLUSION: Coping style, quality of life, and patient satisfaction with care were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. These factors are important to consider for healthcare professionals when supporting patients in decision-making processes.

Unmet care needs of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives: multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The care needs of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives change throughout the disease trajectory. This study focused on the care-related problems and needs of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives. This was done from the perspective of centres for information and support. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from the eQuiPe study: an observational cohort study in which 40 Dutch hospitals participated. All adult patients with a diagnosis of a metastasised tumour and their relatives were eligible. Measures included information on the patients' and relatives' care problems and needs, assessed by the short version of the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care questionnaire. Socioeconomic demographics were also collected. RESULTS: 1103 patients with advanced cancer and 831 relatives were included. Both patients (M=60.3, SD=29.0) and relatives (M=59.2, SD=26.6) experienced most problems in the domain of 'psychological issues'. Both patients (M=14.0, SD=24.2) and relatives (M=17.7, SD=25.7) most frequently reported unmet needs within this domain. The most often reported unmet need by patients was 'worrying about the future of my loved ones' (22.0%); for relatives this was 'fear for physical suffering of the patient' (32.8%). There was no clear relationship between socioeconomic demographics and the experienced unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: The most often mentioned unmet needs consisted of fears and worries, followed by a broad range of topics within multiple domains. Centres for information and support may play a role in reducing the unmet needs of (potential) visitors as these centres provide support on a broad range of topics.

The role of acculturation in the process of advance care planning among Chinese immigrants: A narrative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Acculturation is the process of two different cultures coming into contact. It is unclear how acculturation influences Chinese immigrants' engagement in advance care planning due to the complexity and multifaceted nature of both acculturation and advance care planning. AIMS: To synthesize evidence regarding the role of Chinese immigrants' acculturation in their engagement in advance care planning. DESIGN: Systematic mixed-method review, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021231822). DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for publications until January 21, 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-one out of 1112 identified articles were included in the analysis. Of those 21 articles, 17 had a qualitative design and 13 originated from the United States. Three of four quantitative studies reported that higher acculturation levels were associated with better knowledge or higher rate of engagement in advance care planning. Analysis of qualitative studies showed that Chinese immigrants' engagement in advance care planning was associated with their: (1) self-perceived cultural identity (native or non-native); (2) interpretation of filial piety (traditional or modern); and (3) interpretation of autonomy (individual or familial). To facilitate their engagement, Chinese immigrants prefer an implicit approach, non-family-related initiators, contextualization advance care planning in Chinese culture and using Chinese language. CONCLUSION: Chinese immigrants' willingness to engage in advance care planning varied with their acculturation level. To engage them in advance care planning, we recommend adapting the introduction of advance care planning to address people's perceptions of their cultural identity, filial piety, and autonomy, as well as their preference for certain approach, initiator, context, and language.

Cancer Survivors' Experiences With and Preferences for Medical Information Disclosure and Advance Care Planning: An Online Survey Among Indonesian Cancer Support Groups.

PURPOSE: To understand the experiences and preferences of Indonesian cancer survivors regarding medical information disclosure and advance care planning. METHODS: On the basis of systematic reviews of the scientific literature, qualitative studies, and expert-panel input, we developed an online survey that was distributed to nine cancer survivor support groups in Indonesia. RESULTS: A total of 1,030 valid responses were received. Most participants were younger than 60 years (92%), female (91%), married (78%), Muslim (75%), diagnosed with breast cancer (68%), highly educated (64%), and more than one year beyond diagnosis of their cancer. If diagnosed with a life-limiting illness, participants wished to be informed about their diagnosis (74%), disease severity (61%), estimated curability (81%), expected disease trajectory (66%), and estimated life expectancy (37%). Between 46%-69% of the participants wished to discuss four topics of advance care planning (end-of-life treatments, resuscitation, health care proxies, and what matters at the end of life); 21%-42% had done so. Of those who wished to discuss these topics, 36%-79% preferred to do so with their family members. The most important reasons for not being willing to engage in advance care planning were the desire to surrender to God's will and to focus on here and now. CONCLUSION: In a group of cancer survivors, most of them were highly educated, young, female, and diagnosed with breast cancer. Their preferences for medical information and advance care planning varied, with the majority wishing for information and involvement in advance care planning. Culturally sensitive advance care planning involves health care professionals eliciting individuals' preferences for medical information disclosure and discussing different topics in advance care planning conversations.

Preferences and Attitudes Towards Life-Sustaining Treatments of Older Chinese Patients and Their Family Caregivers.

Purpose: The family plays a major role in medical decision-making in China. Little is known about whether family caregivers understand patients' preference for receiving life-sustaining treatments and are able to make decisions consistent with them when patients are incapable of making medical decisions. We aimed to compare preferences and attitudes concerning life-sustaining treatments of community-dwelling patients with chronic conditions and their family caregivers. Patients and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 150 dyads of community-dwelling patients with chronic conditions and their family caregivers from four communities in Zhengzhou. We measured preferences for life-sustaining treatments (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, tube feeding, hemodialysis, chemotherapy), who should decide, the timing of making decisions, and their most important consideration. Results: The consistency of preferences for life-sustaining treatments between patients and family caregivers was poor to fair, with kappa values ranging from 0.071 for mechanical ventilation to 0.241 for chemotherapy. Family caregivers more frequently preferred each life-sustaining treatment for the patients than the patients themselves. More family caregivers than patients preferred the patient to make their own decisions about life-sustaining treatments (29% of patients and 44% of family caregivers). The most important considerations when deciding on life-sustaining treatments are family burden and the patient's comfort and state of consciousness. Conclusion: There is a poor to fair consistency between community-dwelling older patients and their family caregivers in their preferences and attitudes towards life-sustaining treatments. A minority of patients and family caregivers preferred that patients make their own medical decisions. We recommend healthcare professionals to encourage discussions between patients and their families on future care to improve the mutual understanding within the family about medical decision-making.

Supportive interventions for family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Family caregivers are often intensively involved in palliative and end-of-life cancer care. A variety of interventions to support family caregivers have been developed, differing in target population, modality, and components. We aimed to systematically examine characteristics and the effectiveness of interventions to support family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Cinahl. This review included quantitative studies published from January 2004 until January 2020 reporting on interventions to support family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer in all care settings. RESULTS: Out of 7957 titles, 32 studies were included. Twenty-two studies were randomized controlled trials. Interventions were delivered to four target populations: individual family caregivers (n = 15), family caregiver-patient dyads (n = 11), families (n = 2) and peer groups (n = 4). Most interventions (n = 26) were delivered face-to-face or by phone, two were delivered online. Most interventions included multiple components and were primarily aimed at supporting family caregivers' self-care. Twenty-nine interventions were shown to have beneficial effects on family caregiver outcomes, mostly in the psycho-emotional (n = 24), daily functioning (n = 13) and social dimension (n = 6). Individual interventions were mainly effective in the psycho-emotional dimension, dyad and family interventions in the psycho-emotional and social domain, and group interventions mainly had an effect on daily functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to support family caregivers in advanced cancer care vary widely. Most intervention studies reported beneficial effects for the wellbeing of family caregivers. There is evidence that the target group is associated with beneficial effects on different outcome dimensions.

US and Dutch Perspectives on the Use of COVID-19 Clinical Prediction Models: Findings from a Qualitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical prediction models (CPMs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may support clinical decision making, treatment, and communication. However, attitudes about using CPMs for COVID-19 decision making are unknown. METHODS: Online focus groups and interviews were conducted among health care providers, survivors of COVID-19, and surrogates (i.e., loved ones/surrogate decision makers) in the United States and the Netherlands. Semistructured questions explored experiences about clinical decision making in COVID-19 care and facilitators and barriers for implementing CPMs. RESULTS: In the United States, we conducted 4 online focus groups with 1) providers and 2) surrogates and survivors of COVID-19 between January 2021 and July 2021. In the Netherlands, we conducted 3 focus groups and 4 individual interviews with 1) providers and 2) surrogates and survivors of COVID-19 between May 2021 and July 2021. Providers expressed concern about CPM validity and the belief that patients may interpret CPM predictions as absolute. They described CPMs as potentially useful for resource allocation, triaging, education, and research. Several surrogates and people who had COVID-19 were not given prognostic estimates but believed this information would have supported and influenced their decision making. A limited number of participants felt the data would not have applied to them and that they or their loved ones may not have survived, as poor prognosis may have suggested withdrawal of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Many providers had reservations about using CPMs for people with COVID-19 due to concerns about CPM validity and patient-level interpretation of the outcome predictions. However, several people who survived COVID-19 and their surrogates indicated that they would have found this information useful for decision making. Therefore, information provision may be needed to improve provider-level comfort and patient and surrogate understanding of CPMs. HIGHLIGHTS: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) may provide an objective means of assessing COVID-19 prognosis, provider concerns about CPM validity and the interpretation of CPM predictions may limit their clinical use.Providers felt that CPMs may be most useful for resource allocation, triage, research, or educational purposes for COVID-19.Several survivors of COVID-19 and their surrogates felt that CPMs would have been informative and may have aided them in making COVID-19 treatment decisions, while others felt the data would not have applied to them.

Healthcare use and healthcare costs for patients with advanced cancer; the international ACTION cluster-randomised trial on advance care planning.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning supports patients to reflect on and discuss preferences for future treatment and care. Studies of the impact of advance care planning on healthcare use and healthcare costs are scarce. AIM: To determine the impact on healthcare use and costs of an advance care planning intervention across six European countries. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised trial, registered as ISRCTN63110516, of advance care planning conversations supported by certified facilitators. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer from 23 hospitals in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK. Data on healthcare use were collected from hospital medical files during 12 months after inclusion. RESULTS: Patients with a good performance status were underrepresented in the intervention group (p< 0.001). Intervention and control patients spent on average 9 versus 8 days in hospital (p = 0.07) and the average number of X-rays was 1.9 in both groups. Fewer intervention than control patients received systemic cancer treatment; 79% versus 89%, respectively (p< 0.001). Total average costs of hospital care during 12 months follow-up were €32,700 for intervention versus €40,700 for control patients (p = 0.04 with bootstrap analyses). Multivariable multilevel models showed that lower average costs of care in the intervention group related to differences between study groups in country, religion and WHO-status. No effect of the intervention on differences in costs between study groups was observed (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Lower care costs as observed in the intervention group were mainly related to patients' characteristics. A definite impact of the intervention itself could not be established.

The Web-Based Advance Care Planning Program "Explore Your Preferences for Treatment and Care": Development, Pilot Study, and Before-and-After Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Web-based advance care planning (ACP) programs may support patients in thinking about and discussing their preferences for future treatment and care. However, they are not widely available, and only a limited number of programs are evidence based. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and evaluate an evidence-based, interactive web-based ACP program that guides users through the process of thinking about, discussing, and recording of preferences for treatment and care. METHODS: The program "Explore your preferences for treatment and care" was developed, pilot-tested on feasibility, and subsequently evaluated; engagement in ACP was assessed before program completion and 2 months after program completion using the ACP Engagement Survey (score 1-5) among 147 persons with chronic disease. Usability (score 0-100) and user satisfaction (score 1-5) were also assessed. RESULTS: ACP engagement increased from 2.8 before program completion to 3.0 two months after program completion (P<.001); contemplation about ACP increased from 2.6 to 2.8 (P=.003), and readiness for ACP increased from 2.2 to 2.5 (P<.001). No changes were found for knowledge about ACP (3.0-3.2; P=.07) and self-efficacy for ACP (3.8-3.8; P=.25). The program was perceived as usable (mean 70, SD 13), attractive (mean 3.8, SD 0.7), and comprehensible (mean 4.2, SD 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: We developed an evidence-based, interactive web-based ACP program in cocreation with patients, relatives, and health care professionals. Before-and-after evaluation showed that the program can support people in taking first steps in ACP and in reflecting on preferences for treatment and care, by guiding them through the process of ACP using a stepwise approach. Participants perceived the program as usable and understandable, and they were satisfied with the program and with the amount of information. Health care professionals may use the program as a tool to start ACP discussions with their patients. The program may increase awareness of ACP.

Prognostic models for COVID-19 needed updating to warrant transportability over time and space.

BACKGROUND: Supporting decisions for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with COVID-19 requires accurate prognostication. We aimed to evaluate prognostic models for predicting outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, in different locations and across time. METHODS: We included patients who presented to the ED with suspected COVID-19 and were admitted to 12 hospitals in the New York City (NYC) area and 4 large Dutch hospitals. We used second-wave patients who presented between September and December 2020 (2137 and 3252 in NYC and the Netherlands, respectively) to evaluate models that were developed on first-wave patients who presented between March and August 2020 (12,163 and 5831). We evaluated two prognostic models for in-hospital death: The Northwell COVID-19 Survival (NOCOS) model was developed on NYC data and the COVID Outcome Prediction in the Emergency Department (COPE) model was developed on Dutch data. These models were validated on subsequent second-wave data at the same site (temporal validation) and at the other site (geographic validation). We assessed model performance by the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC), by the E-statistic, and by net benefit. RESULTS: Twenty-eight-day mortality was considerably higher in the NYC first-wave data (21.0%), compared to the second-wave (10.1%) and the Dutch data (first wave 10.8%; second wave 10.0%). COPE discriminated well at temporal validation (AUC 0.82), with excellent calibration (E-statistic 0.8%). At geographic validation, discrimination was satisfactory (AUC 0.78), but with moderate over-prediction of mortality risk, particularly in higher-risk patients (E-statistic 2.9%). While discrimination was adequate when NOCOS was tested on second-wave NYC data (AUC 0.77), NOCOS systematically overestimated the mortality risk (E-statistic 5.1%). Discrimination in the Dutch data was good (AUC 0.81), but with over-prediction of risk, particularly in lower-risk patients (E-statistic 4.0%). Recalibration of COPE and NOCOS led to limited net benefit improvement in Dutch data, but to substantial net benefit improvement in NYC data. CONCLUSIONS: NOCOS performed moderately worse than COPE, probably reflecting unique aspects of the early pandemic in NYC. Frequent updating of prognostic models is likely to be required for transportability over time and space during a dynamic pandemic.

Advance care planning for patients with cancer and family caregivers in Indonesia: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals' willingness to engage in advance care planning is influenced by factors such as culture and religious beliefs. While most studies on advance care planning in Asia have been performed in high-income countries, Indonesia is a lower-middle-income country, with a majority of strongly collectivist and religiously devout inhabitants. We studied the perspectives of Indonesian patients with cancer and family caregivers regarding advance care planning by first exploring their experiences with medical information-disclosure, decision-making, and advance care planning and how these experiences influence their perspectives on advance care planning. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews among 16 patients with cancer and 15 family caregivers in a national cancer center in Jakarta and a tertiary academic general hospital in Yogyakarta. We performed an inductive thematic analysis using open, axial, and selective coding. The rigor of the study was enhanced by reflective journaling, dual coding, and investigator triangulation. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 31 participants were younger than 60 years old, 20 were Muslim and Javanese, and 17 were college or university graduates. Four major themes emerged as important in advance care planning: (1) participants' perceptions on the importance or harmfulness of cancer-related information, (2) the importance of communicating bad news sensitively (through empathetic, implicit, and mediated communication), (3) participants' motives for participating in medical decision-making (decision-making seen as patients' right or responsibility, or patients' state of dependency on others), and (4) the complexities of future planning (e.g., due to its irrelevance to participants' religious beliefs and/or their difficulties in seeing the relevance of future planning). CONCLUSIONS: Culturally sensitive approaches to advance care planning in Indonesia should address the importance of facilitating open communication between patients and their families, and the various perspectives on information provision, bad news communication, and decision-making. Advance care planning should focus on the exploration of patients' values, rather than drafting treatment plans in advance.

Implementation of a threefold intervention to improve palliative care for persons experiencing homelessness: a process evaluation using the RE-AIM framework.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care provision for persons experiencing homelessness is often poor. A threefold consultation service intervention was expected to increase knowledge of palliative care and multidisciplinary collaboration, and improve palliative care for this population. This intervention comprised: 1) consultation of social service professionals by palliative care specialists and vice versa; 2) multidisciplinary meetings with these professionals; and 3) training and education of these professionals. We aimed to evaluate the implementation process and its barriers and facilitators of this service implemented within social services and healthcare organizations in three Dutch regions. METHODS: A process evaluation using structured questionnaires among consultants, semi-structured individual and group interviews among professionals involved, and (research) diaries. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The process evaluation was structured using the Reach, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance dimensions of the RE-AIM framework. RESULTS: All three regions adopted all three activities of the intervention, with differences between the three regions in the start, timing and frequency. During the 21-month implementation period there were 34 consultations, 22 multidisciplinary meetings and 9 training sessions. The professionals reached were mainly social service professionals. Facilitators for adoption of the service were a perceived need for improving palliative care provision and previous acquaintance with other professionals involved, while professionals' limited skills in recognizing, discussing and prioritizing palliative care hindered adoption. Implementation was facilitated by a consultant's expertise in advising professionals and working with persons experiencing homelessness, and hindered by COVID-19 circumstances, staff shortages and lack of knowledge of palliative care in social service facilities. Embedding the service in regular, properly funded meetings was expected to facilitate maintenance, while the limited number of persons involved in this small-scale service was expected to be an obstacle. CONCLUSIONS: A threefold intervention aimed at improving palliative care for persons experiencing homelessness is evaluated as being most usable when tailored to specific regions, with bedside and telephone consultations and a combination of palliative care consultants and teams of social service professionals. It is recommended to further implement this region-tailored intervention with palliative care consultants in the lead, and to raise awareness and to remove fear of palliative care provision.

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.