Interventions to improve outcomes for caregivers of patients with advanced cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer often have poor quality of life (QOL) and mental health. We examined the effectiveness of interventions offering support for caregivers of patients with advanced cancer on caregiver QOL and mental health outcomes. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases from inception through June 2021. Eligible studies reported on randomized controlled trials for adult caregivers of adult patients with advanced cancer. Meta-analysis was conducted for primary outcomes of QOL, physical well-being, mental well-being, anxiety, and depression, from baseline to follow-up of 1-3 months; secondary endpoints were these outcomes at 4-6 months and additional caregiver burden, self-efficacy, family functioning, and bereavement outcomes. Random effects models were used to generate summary standardized mean differences (SMD). RESULTS: Of 12 193 references identified, 56 articles reporting on 49 trials involving 8554 caregivers were eligible for analysis; 16 (33%) targeted caregivers, 19 (39%) patient-caregiver dyads, and 14 (29%) patients and their families. At 1- to 3-month follow-up, interventions had a statistically significant effect on overall QOL (SMD = 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 0.39); I2 = 52.0%), mental well-being (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.25; I2 = 0.0%), anxiety (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.49; I2 = 74.0%), and depression (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.52; I2 = 64.4) compared with standard care. In narrative synthesis, interventions demonstrated improvements in caregiver self-efficacy and grief. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting caregivers, dyads, or patients and families led to improvements in caregiver QOL and mental health. These data support the routine provision of interventions to improve well-being in caregivers of patients with advanced cancer.

Outpatient palliative medicine consultations: urgent or routine?

BACKGROUND: Although outpatient palliative care clinics (OPCCs) provide a venue for early, pre-emptive referral to palliative care on a routine basis, some patients will continue to require urgent referrals. The purpose of this study was to characterise these urgent referrals to determine whether they reflect clinical need or convenience. METHODS: We retrospectively compared new patients in an OPCC who were seen urgently versus those seen at routine appointments. Descriptive statistics compared the two groups in terms of clinical characteristics, referring teams, symptoms, performance status and outcomes. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with urgent referral to the OPCC. Overall survival was compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and December 2017, a total of 113 urgent referrals were reviewed in the OPCC; these were compared with a random sample of 217 routine referrals. Patients seen urgently were more likely to be referred by surgical oncology, and to report worse symptom scores for pain (p=0.0007), tiredness (p=0.02), well-being (p=0.001), constipation (p=0.02) and sleep (p=0.01). More patients seen urgently required direct admission to hospital following the visit (17.7% vs 0.9%, p<0.001). Median survival was shorter for patients seen urgently (4.3 months, 95% CI 3.4 to 7.8) versus routinely (8.1 months, 95% CI 7.2 to 9.5). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with routine referrals, new patients seen urgently in the OPCC had higher symptom burden, shorter median survival and a greater chance of direct admission to hospital. Palliative care clinics should consider how best to accommodate urgent referrals.

Palliative Care for Family Caregivers.

Family caregivers provide substantial care for patients with advanced cancer, while suffering from hidden morbidity and unmet needs. The objectives of this review were to examine risk factors associated with caregiving for patients with advanced cancer, evaluate the evidence for pertinent interventions, and provide a practical framework for palliative care of caregivers in oncology settings. We reviewed studies examining the association of factors at the level of the caregiver, patient, caregiver-patient relationship, and caregiving itself, with adverse outcomes. In addition, we reviewed randomized controlled trials of interventions targeting the caregiver, the caregiver-patient dyad, or the patient and their family. Risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes included those related to the patient's declining status, symptom distress, and poor prognostic understanding; risk factors for adverse bereavement outcomes included unfavorable circumstances of the patient's death. Among the 16 randomized trials, the most promising results showed improvement of depression resulting from early palliative care interventions; results for quality of life were generally nonsignificant or showed an effect only on some subscales. Caregiving outcomes included burden, appraisal, and competence, among others, and showed mixed findings. Only three trials measured bereavement outcomes, with mostly nonsignificant results. On the basis of existent literature and our clinical experience, we propose the CARES framework to guide care for caregivers in oncology settings: Considering caregivers as part of the unit of care, Assessing the caregiver's situation and needs, Referring to appropriate services and resources, Educating about practical aspects of caregiving, and Supporting caregivers through bereavement. Additional trials are needed that are powered specifically for caregiver outcomes, use measures validated for advanced cancer caregivers, and test real-world interventions.