Education About Specialty Palliative Care Among Nonhealthcare Workers: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Despite the expansion of palliative care (PC) services, the public has little knowledge and holds misperceptions about PC, creating barriers to accessing timely specialty PC. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence regarding the efficacy of educational interventions to improve knowledge and attitudes about PC among nonhealthcare workers. METHODS: We searched five databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CIANHL, Web of Science, and Scopus) for studies investigating educational interventions about specialty PC in adults who identified as patients, caregivers, or members of the public. We included studies that were available in English and had a comparator group. We excluded studies that only sampled health professionals or children. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess quality and risk of bias. RESULTS: Of 12,420 records identified, we screened 5948 abstracts and assessed 526 full texts for eligibility. Twenty-one articles were extracted for analysis, representing 20 unique educational interventions. Common methodologies included quasi-experimental (9, 45%), randomized controlled trial (4, 20%), and nonrandomized trial (2, 10%). Common components of the educational interventions included video presentations (9, 45%), written materials (8, 40%), and lectures (4, 20%). Content included definition (14, 70%) and philosophy (14, 70%) of PC, distinctions between PC and hospice (11, 55%), and eligibility for PC (11, 55%). Fourteen (70%) interventions showed statistically significant positive differences in either knowledge or attitudes about PC. CONCLUSIONS: While educational interventions can positively impact knowledge and attitudes about PC among nonhealthcare workers, more research is needed to inform the design, delivery, and evaluation of interventions to increase knowledge and attitudes about PC.

Effect of Perioperative Palliative Care on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Involvement of palliative care specialists in the care of medical oncology patients has been repeatedly observed to improve patient-reported outcomes, but there is no analogous research in surgical oncology populations. Objective: To determine whether surgeon-palliative care team comanagement, compared with surgeon team alone management, improves patient-reported perioperative outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for high morbidity and mortality upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: From October 20, 2018, to March 31, 2022, a patient-randomized clinical trial was conducted with patients and clinicians nonblinded but the analysis team blinded to allocation. The trial was conducted in 5 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the US. Individuals pursuing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer who had received no previous specialist palliative care were eligible. Surgeons were encouraged to offer participation to all eligible patients. Intervention: Surgeon-palliative care comanagement patients met with palliative care either in person or via telephone before surgery, 1 week after surgery, and 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery. For patients in the surgeon-alone group, surgeons were encouraged to follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended triggers for palliative care consultation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the trial was patient-reported health-related quality of life at 3 months following the operation. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported mental and physical distress. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: In total, 359 patients (175 [48.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [10.7] years) were randomized to surgeon-alone (n = 177) or surgeon-palliative care comanagement (n = 182), with most patients (206 [57.4%]) undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery. No adverse events were associated with the intervention, and 11% of patients in the surgeon-alone and 90% in the surgeon-palliative care comanagement groups received palliative care consultation. There was no significant difference between study arms in outcomes at 3 months following the operation in patient-reported health-related quality of life (mean [SD], 138.54 [28.28] vs 136.90 [28.96]; P = .62), mental health (mean [SD], -0.07 [0.87] vs -0.07 [0.84]; P = .98), or overall number of deaths (6 [3.7%] vs 7 [4.1%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: To date, this is the first multisite randomized clinical trial to evaluate perioperative palliative care and the earliest integration of palliative care into cancer care. Unlike in medical oncology practice, the data from this trial do not suggest palliative care-associated improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgeries for upper GI cancers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611309.