Palliative care for patients around the time of haematopoietic stem cell transplant: a qualitative study of patients' perceptions and experiences of unmet need and attitudes towards palliative care involvement.

BACKGROUND: Haemato-oncology patients are likely to be referred later to palliative care than patients with solid tumours, despite experiencing similar symptom burden. Patients prior to stem cell transplant may benefit from symptom control, advance care planning and shared decision-making, and previous studies have demonstrated feasibility and benefit of such a service. However, the views of patients are not yet established, and are vital to ensure acceptability of the service. AIMS: To identify areas where a palliative care team may help to support patients being considered for a stem cell transplant, and to explore the attitudes and perceptions of patients towards palliative care at this time. DESIGN: A qualitative study including interviews (N = 12) and a focus group (N = 4) for patients pre- and post-transplant, using a semi-structured format via telephone, online video-conferencing and face-to-face discussions. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: A tertiary cancer centre in the UK. FINDINGS: Themes identified were the following: Identified needs, Information and decision-making, Importance of relationships, Changing perceptions of what palliative care means, and The future. Patients associate palliative care with terminal care due to indirect experiences. Patients were open to palliative care once its purpose was explained and described emotional and physical needs relevant to early palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of early palliative care alongside haematology treatment prior to stem cell transplant may improve quality of life for patients and facilitate shared decision-making at a crucial stage of treatment. Early palliative care should be offered alongside haematology care around the time of stem cell transplant, with information provided to patients regarding its role.

A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers' and patients' interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Training in patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended, yet little is known about what training is needed. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of PPI activity and training to inform the design of PPI training for both parties. METHODS: We used semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers (chief investigators and trial managers) and PPI contributors, accessed through a cohort of clinical trials, which had been funded between 2006 and 2010. An analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 researchers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although just under half had received such training themselves, and some had concerns about the purpose and evidence base for PPI training. PPI contributors were evenly split in their perceptions of whether researchers needed training in PPI. Few PPI contributors had themselves received training for their roles. Many informants across all groups felt that training PPI contributors was unnecessary because they already possessed the skills needed. Informants were also concerned that training would professionalise PPI contributors, limiting their ability to provide an authentic patient perspective. However, informants welcomed informal induction 'conversations' to help contributors understand their roles and support them in voicing their opinions. Informants believed that PPI contributors should be confident, motivated, intelligent, focussed on helping others and have relevant experience. Researchers looked for these qualities when selecting contributors, and spoke of how finding 'the right' contributor was more important than accessing 'the right' training. CONCLUSIONS: While informants were broadly receptive to PPI training for researchers, they expressed considerable reluctance to training PPI contributors. Providers of training will need to address these reservations. Our findings point to the importance of reconsidering how training is conceptualised, designed and promoted and of providing flexible, learning opportunities in ways that flow from researchers' and contributors' needs and preferences. We also identify some areas of training content and the need for further consideration to be given to the selection of PPI contributors and models for implementing PPI to ensure clinical trials benefit from a diversity of patient perspectives.

Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Decisions made by professional researchers at the outset may go on to have a significant impact on the potential for PPI contributions. OBJECTIVE: To increase knowledge of PPI within the early development of RCTs by systematically describing the reported level, nature and acceptability of proposed PPI to the funders. METHODS: Documentation from the outline application process for all RCTs that received funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme 2006-2010 was requested. For each application, data were extracted on trial characteristics, references to PPI in the development of the outline application and funding Board feedback, and plans for PPI in the full application and after the trial was funded. RESULTS: 110 applications were eligible with outline applications available for 90 (82%). The cohort covered a wide range of interventions and conditions. 54% (49/90) provided some information about PPI. 26 (28.9%) indicated PPI within the development of the outline application itself; 32 (35.6%) planned involvement in the full application and 43 (48%) once the trial was funded. Recruitment at diagnosis and surgical interventions were less likely to describe PPI. Blinded trials and trials in which participants may receive placebo only, more frequently described PPI activity. The HTA commissioning Board feedback rarely referred to PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of PPI within the development of the outline application or specification of plans for future involvement was low. Funder requests for applicants to provide information on PPI and justification for its absence should be welcomed but further research is needed to identify the impact of this on its contributions to research. Comments on PPI by reviewers should be directional rather than state that an increase is required. Challenges facing applicants in initiating PPI prior to funding need to be addressed.