Difficulties of Cancer Patients' Relatives in End-of-Life Discussions: Validation of a Questionnaire.

CONTEXT: Despite the potential benefits and the desire for end-of-life communication, it rarely occurs in the familial context. Relatives play a significant role in the communication process; thus, it is crucial to understand the difficulties that they face. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate the relatives' version of the Difficulties in End-of-Life Discussions - Family Inventory (DEOLD-FI-r) regarding its factor structure, reliability and validity. METHODS: Relatives of patients with advanced cancer were recruited in a German hospital. The factor structure of the questionnaire was explored. Construct validity was examined through correlations between the DEOLD-FI-r and measures of avoidance of cancer communication, quality of life, distress, and experienced difficulty during end-of-life discussions. Additionally, we examined the group difference between those who had and had not engaged in the conversation. RESULTS: About 111 relatives completed the survey (mean age 55.5 years, 52% female). The final version of the DEOLD-FI-r contained 23 items (α = .92). The exploratory factor analysis resulted in three factors explaining 74% of the variance. Each factor described another dimension of potential communication barriers in end-of-life discussions: 1) Own emotional burden, 2) Relational and patient-related difficulties, 3) Negative attitudes. Construct validity was supported by correlations consistent with our hypotheses and less reported communication difficulty by those who had already talked about the end-of-life with their relative (t(106) = 5.38, P < .001, d = 0.8). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the DEOLD-FI-r is a valid and reliable instrument for the systematic assessment of difficulties in family end-of-life communication. By focusing on relatives, it complements the already validated patient-version.

Rethinking parameters of "success" in breaking bad news conversations from patient's perspective: the successful delivery process model.

PURPOSE: Studies that focus on improving the difficult process of breaking bad news in oncology should include the patient perspective and be guided by appropriate outcome measures. Endpoints such as "patient satisfaction" fall short to capture the complex nature of breaking bad news (BBN) conversations. However, this is true of many studies. The present study attempts to develop a framework model from a new, patient-centered perspective, which can be applied equally in clinical practice and in education. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews with twelve cancer patients were conducted. Transcripts were analyzed by "qualitative content analysis" following Mayring. Outcomes were further extrapolated in interpretational steps, and a model of "success" from patients view in BBN was developed. RESULTS: Two central needs of the patients could be identified: understanding and feelings. Their fulfillment depends on two groups of variables: first, structural characteristics, such as the inevitable shock, individuality, and processability; second, strongly influenceable variables, such as relationship, transfer of knowledge, and atmosphere. From these results, a framework model for successful breaking of bad news from the patient's perspective was developed: The successful delivery process model (SDP model). CONCLUSION: As a basic model for the framework for breaking bad news from the patient's perspective, the SDP model can be applied to many different situations in oncology and help to frame the difficult conversations by tailoring the BBN conversations on determinants that favorably influence the process in a patient centered manner. In this sense, the model can be useful in clinical practice as well as in education.

Questionnaires About the End of Life for Cancer Patients - Is the Response Burden Acceptable?

CONTEXT: Research about the end of life with the help of patient-reported outcomes in vulnerable populations such as cancer patients is needed but is potentially burdensome and can therefore raise concerns. OBJECTIVES: To assess the response burden due to questionnaires about the end of life in cancer patients and to explore associations with individual variables. METHODS: In a cross-sectional design response burden was assessed using a six-item instrument after completion of a survey that concerned the end of life. Associations with age, gender, type of care (curative/palliative), years since diagnosis, distress, depression, anxiety, death anxiety, readiness for end-of-life conversations, and readiness for advance care planning were explored via correlational analyses and multiple regressions. Burden due to the topic of end-of-life and completing questionnaires in general was compared. RESULTS: A total of 269 cancer patients (mean age 61.4 (SD =12.3); 59.5% male; 58.4% in palliative care) completed the survey in a German hospital. The majority did not report response burden; 29.7% reported at least some burden due to study participation. The multiple regression (F [10,26] = 9.97, p < 0.001) indicated that stable predictors of response burden were higher death anxiety (ß = 0.4), lower readiness to talk about one's end of life (ß = -0.34) and higher age (ß = 0.23). No additional subjective burden due to the topic of end-of-life was reported. CONCLUSION: The reported response burden seems acceptable since it was generally low. However, a subgroup did report some burden. Minimising burden and enhancing participants' benefits without compromising the research quality should further influence study designs in this field.

Patients' Perspective on Termination of Pacemaker Therapy-A Cross-Sectional Anonymous Survey among Patients Carrying a Pacemaker in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the opinions of patients regarding the withdrawal of pacemaker therapy. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional anonymous questionnaire was administered to patients visiting an outpatient cardiologic clinic for routine follow-up visits of pacemaker therapy or patients carrying a pacemaker admitted to a hospital between 2021 and 2022. RESULTS: Three-hundred and forty patients answered the questionnaire. A total of 56% of the participants were male. The mean age was 81 years. The majority of respondents were very comfortable with their PM and felt well informed, with one exception: more than half of respondents were missing information on withdrawal of pacemaker therapy. Almost two-thirds wanted to decide for themselves if their pacemaker therapy was withdrawn regardless of whether they were ill or healthy. Almost 60% of patients would like the pacemaker to be turned off when dying. Women expressed this wish significantly more often than men. CONCLUSION: Our survey shows that patients prefer to be informed on issues regarding the withdrawal of pacemakers as early as preimplantation. Also, patients would like to be involved in decisions that have to be made at the end of life, including decisions on withdrawal. Offers of conversations about this important issue should include information on special features of the patient's pacemaker, e.g., the absence or presence of pacemaker dependency. Knowledge about the pacemaker's functionality may prevent distress among individuals nearing their end of life when, for example, under the false impression that timely deactivation may allow for a more peaceful death.

Cancer advance care planning: development of a screening tool.

OBJECTIVES: Advance care discussions are a useful communication tools for medical preferences and beneficial for shared decision-making processes in hospital settings. The present study developed the first screening tool for need for advance care planning (ACP). METHODS: In phase 1 (n=92), items were evaluated using feasibility analysis and item reduction. In phase 2 (n=201), reduced screening items were analysed for predictive value of need for ACP. Statistical analysis included receiver-operating characteristics analysis (area under the curve>0.80), optimal cut-off based on sensitivity and specificity, interpretation of OR and construct validity using correlation with death anxiety, communication avoidance within families and trust based on the relationship with the treating physician. RESULTS: Participants in both phases were approximately 60 years old with non-curative prognosis. After item reduction, predictive values of four possible items with good item difficulty and discrimination were compared for mild, moderate and great levels of death anxiety. A two-item combination of I am burdened by thoughts of an unfavourable course of the disease and I am burdened by the feeling of being ill-prepared for the end of life showed best prediction of death anxiety and communication avoidance. Clinical cut-off at sum-score ≥6 was of high sensitivity (95%) and specificity (81%). Previous use of social support and readiness for ACP was related to higher chance of interest in ACP. CONCLUSION: Screening for need of ACP is possible with two objective items and one subjective item. Positive screening therefore indicates when to offer ACP discussions and provides routine estimation of ACP need in clinical practice.

Does Educational Status Influence Parents' Response to Bad News in the NICU?

Communication in neonatal intensive care units and the relationship between families and staff have been reported to influence parental mental well-being. Research has also shown an impact of parental educational level on their well-being. However, whether different educational levels result in different reactions to breaking bad news (BBN) by physicians remains unanswered so far. We therefore examined the impact of parental level of education on their mental state after a BBN conversation and their relation to physicians. A prospective quantitative survey was conducted amongst 54 parents whose preterm or term infants were hospitalized in three German neonatal units. Parental education was classified as low (lower secondary/less (1), n: 23) or high (higher secondary/more (2), n: 31). Parents answered questions about certain aspects of and their mental state after BBN and their trust in physicians. The two groups did not differ significantly in their mental condition after BBN, with both reporting high levels of exhaustion and worries, each (median (min;max): (1): 16 (6;20) vs. (2): 14 (5;20), (scaling: 5-20)). However, lower-educated parents reported a lower trust in physicians (median (min;max): (1): 2 (0;9) vs. (2): 1 (0;6), p < 0.05 (scaling: 0-10)) and felt less safe during BBN (median (min;max): (1): 15 (9;35) vs. (2): 13 (9;33), p < 0.05). Only among higher-educated parents was trust in physicians significantly correlated with the safety and orientation provided during BBN (r: 0.583, p < 0.05, r: 0.584, p < 0.01). Concurrently, only among less-educated parents was safety correlated with the hope conveyed during BBN (r: 0.763, p < 0.01). Therefore, in BBN discussions with less-educated parents, physicians should focus more on giving them hope to promote safety.

Cancer patients' expectations of advance care planning: A typological content analysis of qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) can help to elicit cancer patients' preferences in a discussion process to promote person-centred medical decision-making. Expectations are known to be highly relevant determinants of decisional processes. So far, however, little is known about cancer patients' expectations of ACP that lead to acceptance or refusal of the programme. The presented study, therefore, aims to explore cancer patients' expectations of ACP. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of 27 cancer patients consenting to or refusing a newly implemented ACP programme in a German university hospital. Data were analysed using typological content analysis. RESULTS: We identified five different expectation clusters in relation to ACP. Consenting participants held expectations about the impact of ACP that were either 'ego-centred' or 'family-centred'. Refusers had expectations based on ignorance and misinformation, or-if they had already completed an advance directive-expectations to avoid unpleasant redundancy, perceiving no additional benefit but a burden from ACP. Finally, refusers in particular expressed expectations of delegated responsibility at the end of life, including anticipation of proxy decision-making. CONCLUSION: Our study results suggest that expectation-modifying measures could be taken to positively influence cancer patients' expectations and thus the acceptance of ACP. In this respect, reducing ignorance and misguided expectations plays a decisive role. Especially in family constellations with expected delegation of responsibility and dependence at the end of life, it might be important to promote ACP as a family-intervention to improve family outcomes.

Do parents get what they want during bad news delivery in NICU?

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about parents' preferences in breaking bad news (BBN) in neonatology. The study was aimed at comparing parents' experiences with their first BBN discussion with a neonatologist/pediatric surgeon to their personal preferences. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative survey amongst 54 parents of hospitalized preterm or term infants with severe diseases in two medium-size and one small German neonatal units. Parents answered self-rated questions on how they perceived BBN during their infant's hospital stay, asking for procedure and perception of BBN, their preferences and satisfaction with BBN. RESULTS: Overall satisfaction with BBN was moderate to high (median (min-max): 8 (1-10) on a 1-10-Likert scale). A compassionate way of disclosure correlated highest with overall satisfaction with BBN. Thorough transmission of information in an easy to understand manner emerged as another crucial point and correlated significantly to satisfaction with BBN, too. The study revealed that it was highly important for parents, that physicians had good knowledge of the infant and the course of his/her disease, which was only met in a minority of cases. Moreover, there was a major discrepancy between expected and observed professional competence of the delivering physicians. Additionally, physicians did not set aside sufficient time for BBN and parents reported a lack of transporting assurance and hope. CONCLUSIONS: In BBN physicians should draw greatest attention to ensure understanding in parents, with good knowledge of child and disease and sufficient time in a trustworthy manner. Physicians should focus on transporting competence, trust and gentleness.

Prolonged Grief in Times of Lockdown During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of prolonged grief (PG) during the COVID-19 pandemic and to analyze associated variables. 142 family members of patients who died during the lockdown at a hospital were surveyed 6 months after the death. Prolonged grief, depression and anxiety, grief rumination, and loss-related variables were captured. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to detect the associated variables of PG symptoms. Prolonged grief was present in 44.4% of the bereaved. 76.2% of the relatives reported feeling distressed due to visitor restrictions, and the majority of them were unable to bid farewell to their family member at the time of death. Pastoral or psychological care was also lacking. Low education (p < 0.001), emotional closeness (p = 0.007), loss of a spouse (p < 0.001), inability to bid farewell after death (p = 0.024), feeling of threat due to the pandemic (p < 0.001), depression (p = 0.014), and anxiety (p = 0.028) were significantly associated with prolonged grief.

Prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study on the provision of information regarding sudden unexpected death in epilepsy to adults with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Despite increased awareness of the serious epilepsy complication sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), a substantial population of people with epilepsy (PWE) remain poorly informed. Physicians indicate concern that SUDEP information may adversely affect patients' health and quality of life. We examined SUDEP awareness and the immediate and long-term effects of providing SUDEP information to PWE. METHODS: Baseline knowledge and behaviors among PWE and behavioral adjustments following the provision of SUDEP information were evaluated in a prospective, multicenter survey using the following validated scales: Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy for depression symptoms, the EuroQoL five-dimension scale for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a visual analog scale for overall health, the revised Epilepsy Stigma Scale for perceived stigma, and the Seizure Worry Scale for seizure-related worries. The prospective study collected data through semiquantitative interviews before (baseline), immediately after, and 3 months after the provision of SUDEP information. RESULTS: In total, 236 participants (mean age = 39.3 years, range = 18-77 years, 51.7% women) were enrolled, and 205 (86.9%) completed long-term, 3-month follow-up. One patient died from SUDEP before follow-up. No worsening symptoms from baseline to 3-month follow-up were observed on any scale. At baseline, 27.5% of participants were aware of SUDEP. More than 85% of participants were satisfied with receiving SUDEP information. Three quarters of participants were not concerned by the information, and >80% of participants recommended the provision of SUDEP information to all PWE. Although most patients reported no behavioral adjustments, 24.8% reported strong behavioral adjustments at 3-month follow-up. SIGNIFICANCE: The provision of SUDEP information has no adverse effects on overall health, HRQoL, depressive symptoms, stigma, or seizure worry among PWE, who appreciate receiving information. SUDEP information provision might improve compliance among PWE and reduce but not eliminate the increased mortality risk.

NEO-SPEAK: A conceptual framework that underpins breaking bad news in neonatology.

Objective: Breaking bad news in neonatology is a frequent and difficult challenge. Although there are guidelines for communicating with parents in pediatrics and neonatology, the specific framework for breaking bad news in neonatology has not been studied in more detail. Therefore, we aimed to identify determinants that are important for successful managing breaking bad news in neonatology from professionals' perspective and to develop a conceptual framework that underpins this challenging task. Methods: We conducted seventeen semi-structured interviews with senior neonatologists of six perinatal centers of the highest level of care in Germany. The transcripts were analyzed according to Mayring's method of qualitative content analysis using inductive and deductive coding. Results: Eight determinants of breaking bad news in neonatology could be identified from the interviews. From these, we developed the conceptual framework NEO-SPEAK. The first three determinants, Neonatal prognostic uncertainty, Encounter in (triangular-)partnerships, Organization and teamwork (NEO) are directly related to the specific care situation in neonatology, whereas the others, Situational stress, Processuality, Emotional burden, Attention to individuality, Knowledge and experience, play a role for difficult conversations in general, but are subject to special modifications in neonatology (SPEAK). In addition, the results show that the context in neonatology as well as reciprocal effects on the team and the individual level of the physicians are important influencing factors in breaking bad news. Conclusion: On the one hand, the constitutional framework NEO-SPEAK shows which special aspects play a role in neonatology for the delivery of bad news, and on the other hand, it can help to identify and consider these aspects in clinical routine and training. Considering or reinforcing each NEO-SPEAK element when planning or delivering bad news may guide healthcare professionals through communication with parents of critically ill or premature newborns and support the resilience of the caring team.

Developing a care pathway for hospital-based advance care planning for cancer patients: A modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to develop a care pathway for a hospital-based advance care planning service for cancer patients. METHODS: A web-based modified Delphi study consulted an expert panel consisting of a convenience sample of stakeholders including professionals with a special interest in advance care planning as well as a 'public and patient involvement group'. After generating ideas for core elements of a care pathway in the first round, numerical ratings and rankings informed the multi-professional research steering group's decision process eventually resulting in a final pathway. RESULTS: The 41 participants in the Delphi study identified 177 potential core elements of the pathway in the first round. In two further rounds, consensus was reached on a final version of the pathway with 148 elements covering the 10 domains: prerequisites, organisation and coordination, identification and referral, provision of information, information sources, family involvement, advance care planning discussion, documentation, update and quality assurance. CONCLUSION: We propose a care pathway for advance care planning for hospital patients with cancer based on the results of a Delphi study that reached consensus on an implementation strategy. Our study pioneers the standardisation of the process and provides input for further policy and research with the aim of aligning cancer patients' care with their preferences and values.

Expectations, end-of-life fears and end-of-life communication among palliative patients with cancer and caregivers: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: During serious illness, open communication with caregivers can ensure high-quality care. Without end-of-life communication, caregivers may become surrogates and decision-makers without knowing the patient's preferences. However, expectations and fears may influence the initiation of communication. The present study investigates differences between palliative patients with cancer and caregivers regarding expectations of end-of-life communication, end-of-life fears and experiences with end-of-life communication. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using a semi-structured interview and a paper-based questionnaire SETTING: University Hospital in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 151 participants: 85 palliative cancer patients (mean age: 62.8 years, 65.9% male) and 66 caregivers (mean age: 56.3 years, 28.8% male). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Expectations, end-of-life fears and experiences of end-of-life discussions. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers wish for the patient to be self-determined. In general, participants reported more positive than negative expectations of end-of-life discussions. Importantly, concerns about emotionally burdening other person was rated much higher in an informal context than a professional context (F(1,149)=316 958, p<0.001, ηp²=0.680), even though the emotional relief was expected to be higher (F(1,149)=46.115, p<0.001, ηp²=0.236). Caregivers reported more fears about the last period of life and more fears about end-of-life discussions than palliative patients, whereas palliative patients tended to avoid the topics of death and dying to a greater extent. CONCLUSIONS: There seems to exist a 'self-other' asymmetry: palliative patients and their caregivers expect substantial personal relief when openly talking about end-of-life issues, but also expect the other person to be burdened by such communication. Professionals repeatedly need to initiate end-of-life communication.

Validation of the Readiness for End-of-Life Conversations (REOLC) scale in a German hospital setting.

Objective: For every health behavior, readiness to engage is a necessary and crucial foundation for following conversations, interventions or behavior changes. The present study aims to support a one-factor structure for the Readiness for End-of-Life Conversations (REOLC) scale (Berlin et al., 2021) in a population of cancer patients (N = 295). Methods: For validation purposes, data of patients participating in a screening development study at a university clinic was used. Model adequacy was analyzed with structural equation modelling and controlled for with goodness of fit indices: χ2-test, SRMR, rRMSEA. Discriminant and convergent validity were assessed with correlations of REOLC and psychological or health behavior measures. Results: Factor structure was supported with good fit indices, discriminant validity and convergent validity. Readiness correlated significantly with age and reported death anxiety. Conclusion: The REOLC scale is a reliable instrument to assess cancer patients' readiness for end-of-life conversations. Future studies may further address moderating and mediating effects of socio-demographic, medical and psychological factors. Innovation: The assessment of readiness may further indicate anxiety levels of cancer patients and enables practitioners to provide interventions accordingly. However, in a clinical setting and especially for patients with a palliative prognosis, end-of-life care conversations may need to be introduced early.

Patients' knowledge about epilepsy-related risks, morbidity, and mortality: A multicenter cohort study from Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Patient education is a central component of quality care. Enhancing patient knowledge can improve patients' quality of life and facilitate successful self-management. We sought to identify patients' knowledge levels and knowledge gaps regarding epilepsy-related risks, morbidity, and mortality. METHODS: Adult patients with epilepsy presenting to the university hospitals in Frankfurt, Greifswald, and Marburg between February 2018 and May 2020 were asked to participate in this questionnaire-based study. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients (52% women), with a mean age of 39.2 years (range: 18-77 years), participated in this study. Spontaneously, the majority of patients (51.3%) named driving a car, and other traffic-related accidents as possible causes of morbidity and mortality, and 23.9% of patients reported various causes of premature death, such as suffocation, drowning, and respiratory or cardiac arrest due to seizures. Falls due to epilepsy (19.7%) and injuries in general (17.6%) were named as further causes of morbidity and mortality. The vast majority were aware that alcohol (87.4%), sleep deprivation (86.6%), and risky activities in daily life (80.3%) increased the risk of seizure occurrence or increased morbidity and mortality. Regarding overall mortality, 52.1% thought that people with epilepsy were at greater risk of premature death, whereas 46.2% denied this fact to be true. Only 29.4% were aware of status epilepticus, and 27.3% were aware of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Driving ability, working ability, and seizure risk were named as major or moderate concerns among patients, but the risk of premature mortality was not a major concern. One-quarter of all patients (26.9%) indicated that they were not counseled about any risk factors or causes of morbidity or mortality by their physicians. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of knowledge concerning premature mortality, SUDEP, and status epilepticus exists among adult patients with epilepsy. A substantial number of patients indicated that these issues were not discussed adequately by their physicians.

'It was like taking an inner bath': A qualitative evaluation of a collaborative advance care planning-approach.

BACKGROUND: Impaired readiness may hinder purposeful advance care planning in cancer patients. To reduce barriers to participation in end-of-life decision-making, a collaborative intervention was developed combining a psycho-oncological approach of dignity-based and cognitive-behavioural interventions, followed by a standardised advance care planning-process. AIM: To evaluate the novel collaborative advance care planning-approach by synthetising cancer patient and carer perspectives on communicational and relational effects. DESIGN: As a sub-project of a mixed-methods evaluation study, we conducted an inductive content analysis of qualitative interviews with advanced cancer patients and caregivers to deeply explore the focused impact of a collaborative advance care planning-approach on communication and relationship dynamics. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Twelve patients with advanced cancer and 13 carers who participated in a collaborative advance care planning-intervention. RESULTS: The collaborative advance care planning-approach was consistently evaluated positively by participants. Transcriptions of the semi-structured interviews were coded, analysed and merged under three main themes concerning communicational and relationship dynamics: action readiness, content readiness and impact on future communication and relationship. CONCLUSIONS: The novel intervention served to foster individual readiness - including action and content readiness - for advance care planning-discussions by addressing highly individualised barriers to participation, as well as specific end-of-life issues. In addition, societal readiness could be promoted. Although the brief psycho-oncological intervention could not fully meet the needs of all participants, it can be used to develop individual psychotherapeutic strategies to improve different facets of readiness. The collaborative advance care planning-approach might require more time and human resources, but could pioneer successful advance care planning.

The Difficulties in End-of-Life Discussions - Family Inventory (DEOLD-FI): Development and Initial Validation of a Self-Report Questionnaire in a Sample of Terminal Cancer Patients.

CONTEXT: Open end-of-life communication is especially important within the patient-family unit of care and can positively affect their medical, psychological, and relational outcomes. Nevertheless, end-of-life discussions are often perceived as difficult and avoided. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate the Difficulties in End-of-Life Discussions - Family Inventory (DEOLD-FI) to allow a systematic assessment of reasons why people shy away from end-of-life discussions. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer were recruited and completed the DEOLD-FI and measures of avoidance of cancer communication, quality of life and distress, and the experienced difficulty as well as the occurrence of end-of-life discussions. Standard item analyses and an exploratory factor analysis were conducted. Construct validity was analysed through associations between the DEOLD-FI and the aforementioned measures. RESULTS: Questionnaires were obtained from 112 participants (53% response rate; male 54%, mean age 64.9 years [range 33-94]). In the final 23-item version two factors were extracted: 'emotional burden due to end-of-life discussions' (α = 0.90) and "negative attitudes towards end-of-life discussions" (α = 0.91) explaining 69% of the variance (total scale α = 0.93). Construct validity was supported by its significant correlations with the reported difficulty in end-of-life discussions (r = 0.42) and avoidance of cancer communication (r = 0.40 to r = 0.46) and insignificant correlations with quality of life (r = -0.11), distress (r = 0.16), and physical well-being (r = 0.02). Those who had already engaged in end-of-life discussions showed significantly fewer communication barriers. CONCLUSION: Results provide evidence that the DEOLD-FI is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of difficulties in end-of-life discussions. Benefits for clinical practice and research are discussed.

Development and Validation of the Readiness for End-of-Life Conversations (REOLC) Scale.

Background: Engaging in end-of-life care considerations is beneficial when the time is right. The purpose of this study is to provide a valid instrument to assess peoples readiness for end-of-life conversations before they are initiated. Materials and Methods: A community sample was recruited in study one for exploratory factor analysis of a 13-item questionnaire. In study two, psychometric properties were analyzed with structural equation modeling in a population affected by cancer. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed with questionnaires measuring distress, depression, anxiety, fear of progression, and distress of death and dying. Results: In study one (N = 349) exploratory factor analysis resulted in three subscales readiness (α = 0.84), communication (α = 0.76), and values (α = 0.56) with a possible common factor (α = 0.84) for a community sample. In study two (N = 84) the three-factor solution with 13 items was not supported for cancer patients. Factor structure was adapted to 12 items with one common factor readiness (α = 0.87). Model fit was good: χ2(50) = 59.18, p>0.05 (Satorra-Bentler-correction = 1.27), with χ2/df = 1.184, rRMSEA = 0.053 (90%-CI[0.000;0.100]), and rSRMR = 0.072. Convergent validity was supported by moderate correlations to trait gratitude, ratings of readiness to provide a living will or talk with family about the end of life. Divergent validity was supported by no or small correlation with distress, depression, general and death anxiety and fear of progression, respectively. Conclusions: Results support usage of the REOLC Scale in different settings with adapted factor structure. The questionnaire is interpreted as valid and reliable instrument to assess objective readiness for end-of-life conversations.

Systematic mixed-method review of barriers to end-of-life communication in the family context.

BACKGROUND: Communication about the end of life is especially important in the family context, as patients and their families are considered as the care unit in palliative care. Open end-of-life communication can positively affect medical, psychological and relational outcomes during the dying process for patient and family. Regardless of the benefits of end-of-life conversations, many patients and their family caregivers speak little about relevant end-of-life issues. AIM: To identify barriers that hinder or influence the discussion of end-of-life issues in the family context. DESIGN: A systematic mixed-method review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science was conducted and extended with a hand search. Peer-reviewed primary studies reporting on the barriers to or difficulties in end-of-life conversations experienced by terminally ill patients and/or family caregivers were included in this review. RESULTS: 18 qualitative and two quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. The experiences of n=205 patients and n=738 family caregivers were analysed qualitatively; n=293 patients and n=236 caregivers were surveyed in the questionnaire studies. Five overarching categories emerged from the extracted data: emotional, cognitive, communicative, relational and external processes can hinder end-of-life communication within the family. The most frequently reported barriers are emotional and cognitive processes such as protective buffering or belief in positive thinking. CONCLUSIONS: Research on end-of-life communication barriers in the family context is scarce. Further research should enhance the development of appropriate assessment tools and interventions to support families with the challenges experienced regarding end-of-life conversations.