Explore the vast range of titles available.

The ACTION trial evaluated the effect of a modified version of the Respecting Choices' advance care planning programme in patients with advanced cancer in six European countries. For this purpose, an advance directive acceptable for all six ACTION countries to be used for documenting the wishes and preferences of patients and as a communication tool between patients, their caregivers and healthcare staff, was needed. To describe the development of a multinational cancer specific advance directive, the 'My Preferences form', which was first based on the 2005 Wisconsin 'Physician Orders of Life Sustaining Treatment' Form, to be used within the ACTION trial. Framework analysis of all textual data produced by members of the international project team during the development of the ACTION advance directives (e.g. drafts, emails, meeting minutes...). ACTION consortium members (N = 28) with input from clinicians from participating hospitals (N = 13) and 'facilitators' (N = 8) who were going to deliver the intervention. Ten versions of the ACTION advance directive, the 'My Preferences form', were developed and circulated within the ACTION consortium. Extensive modifications took place; removal, addition, modification of themes and modification of clinical to lay terminology. The result was a thematically comprehensive advance directive to be used as a communication tool across the six European countries within the ACTION trial. This article shows the complex task of developing an advance directive suitable for cancer patients from six European countries; a process which required the resolution of several cross cultural differences in law, ethics, philosophy and practice. Our hope is that this paper can contribute to a deeper conceptual understanding of advance directives, their role in supporting decision making among patients approaching the end of life and be an inspiration to others wishing to develop a disease-specific advance directive or a standardised multinational advance directive.

Background Missing data are common in end-of-life care studies, but there is still relatively little exploration of which is the best method to deal with them, and, in particular, if the missing at random (MAR) assumption is valid or missing not at random (MNAR) mechanisms should be assumed. In this paper we investigated this issue through a sensitivity analysis within the ACTION study, a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial testing advance care planning in patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer. Methods Multiple imputation procedures under MAR and MNAR assumptions were implemented. Possible violation of the MAR assumption was addressed with reference to variables measuring quality of life and symptoms. The MNAR model assumed that patients with worse health were more likely to have missing questionnaires, making a distinction between single missing items, which were assumed to satisfy the MAR assumption, and missing values due to completely missing questionnaire for which a MNAR mechanism was hypothesized. We explored the sensitivity to possible departures from MAR on gender differences between key indicators and on simple correlations. Results Up to 39% of follow-up data were missing. Results under MAR reflected that missingness was related to poorer health status. Correlations between variables, although very small, changed according to the imputation method, as well as the differences in scores by gender, indicating a certain sensitivity of the results to the violation of the MAR assumption. Conclusions The findings confirmed the importance of undertaking this kind of analysis in end-of-life care studies.

BackgroundPeople with advanced cancer often suffer from various symptoms, which can arise from the cancer itself and its treatment, the illness experience, and/or co-morbid conditions. Important patient-reported outcomes such as functional status, symptom severity, and quality of life (QoL) might differ between countries, as countries vary with regard to contextual factors such as their healthcare system.PurposeTo assess self-reported emotional functioning, physical functioning, symptoms, and overall QoL in patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer from six European countries, particularly in relation to their country of residence.MethodsWe used baseline patient data from the ACTION trial, including socio-demographic and clinical data as well as patient-reported data regarding functioning, symptoms, and overall QoL (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL).ResultsData from 1117 patients (55% lung cancer stage III/IV, 45% colorectal cancer stage IV) were used. The highest (worst) average symptom score was found for fatigue. We found similarities but also important differences in the outcomes across countries. The best scores (the highest for emotional functioning and QoL, the lowest for symptoms) were reported by Dutch and Danish patients. Belgian patients reported relatively low emotional functioning.ConclusionThe optimization of functioning, symptom relief, and overall QoL should be important objectives of healthcare professionals who take care of patients with advanced cancer. There are similarities, but also substantial differences across countries in functional status, symptoms, and overall QoL. Policymakers should take these differences into account and invest in offering health care catered to the needs of their population.

In late-stage palliative cancer care, relief of distress and optimized well-being become primary treatment goals. Great strides have been made in improving and researching pharmacological treatments for symptom relief; however, little systematic knowledge exists about the range of non-pharmacological caregiving activities (NPCAs) staff use in the last days of a patient's life. Within a European Commission Seventh Framework Programme project to optimize research and clinical care in the last days of life for patients with cancer, OPCARE9, we used a free-listing technique to identify the variety of NPCAs performed in the last days of life. Palliative care staff at 16 units in nine countries listed in detail NPCAs they performed over several weeks. In total, 914 statements were analyzed in relation to (a) the character of the statement and (b) the recipient of the NPCA. A substantial portion of NPCAs addressed bodily care and contact with patients and family members, with refraining from bodily care also described as a purposeful caregiving activity. Several forms for communication were described; information and advice was at one end of a continuum, and communicating through nonverbal presence and bodily contact at the other. Rituals surrounding death and dying included not only spiritual/religious issues, but also more subtle existential, legal, and professional rituals. An unexpected and hitherto under-researched area of focus was on creating an aesthetic, safe, and pleasing environment, both at home and in institutional care settings. Based on these data, we argue that palliative care in the last days of life is multifaceted, with physical, psychological, social, spiritual, and existential care interwoven in caregiving activities. Providing for fundamental human needs close to death appears complex and sophisticated; it is necessary to better distinguish nuances in such caregiving to acknowledge, respect, and further develop end-of-life care.

Background: Family is a crucial social institution in end-of-life care. Family caregivers are encouraged to take on more responsibility at different times during the illness, providing personal and medical care. Unpaid work can be overburdening, with women often spending more time in care work than men. Objectives: This study explored multiple views on the family’s role in end-of-life care from a critical perspective and a relational autonomy lens, considering gender in a socio-cultural context and applying a relational autonomy framework. It explored patients, relatives and healthcare providers’ points of view. Design: This qualitative study was part of the iLIVE project, involving patients with incurable diseases, their relatives and health carers from hospital and non-hospital sites. Methods: Individual interviews of at least five patients, five relatives and five healthcare providers in each of the 10 participating countries using a semi-structured interview guide based on Giger–Davidhizar–Haff’s model for cultural assessment in end-of-life care. Thematic analysis was performed initially within each country and across the complete dataset. Data sources, including researchers’ field notes, were translated into English for international collaborative analysis. Results: We conducted 158 interviews (57 patients, 48 relatives and 53 healthcare providers). After collaborative analysis, five themes were identified across the countries: family as a finite care resource, families’ active role in decision-making, open communication with the family, care burden and socio-cultural mandates. Families were crucial for providing informal care during severe illness, often acting as the only resource. Patients acknowledged the strain on carers, leading to a conceptual model highlighting socio-cultural influences, relational autonomy, care burden and feminisation of care. Conclusion: Society, health teams and family systems still need to better support the role of family caregivers described across countries. The model implies that family roles in end-of-life care balance relational autonomy with socio-cultural values. Real-world end-of-life scenarios do not occur in a wholly individualistic, closed-off atmosphere but in an interpersonal setting. Gender is often prominent, but normative ideas influence the decisions and actions of all involved.

Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce. To test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015-2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0-3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients' age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients' quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score -1.8 versus -0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the intervention group. A key limitation of the study is that recruitment rates were lower in intervention than in control hospitals. Our results show that quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who received usual care. The increased use of specialist palliative care and AD inclusion in hospital files of intervention patients is meaningful and requires further study. Our findings suggest that alternative approaches to support patient-centred end-of-life care in this population are needed. ISRCTN registry ISRCTN63110516.

Large, international cohort studies generate high-level evidence, but are resource intense. In end-of-life care such studies are scarce. Hence, planning for future studies in terms of data on screening, recruitment, retention and survival remains a challenge. The aim was to describe recruitment, follow-up and survival in a multinational study of patients' and relatives' expectations, concerns and preferences at the end of life. In this 11-country cohort study with six months follow-up patients, >18 years old, were included on the basis of an adapted \"surprise question\" to assess patients´ end of life status. Patients were required to be aware of their limited life expectancy. We collected patient questionnaires (baseline and 1 month), and searched medical records for the date of death. One relative per patient was invited to participate. 26735 patients were screened for inclusion, 3065 (11%) were found eligible and were invited to participate, 1509 chose to participate, i.e. 6% of those initially screened. A total of 699 patients (49%) participated in the 1-month follow-up, with proportions varying according to survival time, from 20% if the patient died at month 2, to 75% if the patient died at month 6. Survival time was not associated with patient gender or age, but with diagnosis, country of residence and healthcare setting. Approximately 20 times the desired cohort size had to be screened for eligibility. Prognostication was difficult, we noted a wide distribution of survival after inclusion. Patients' ability to complete follow-up questionnaires declined well before death.

To examine how an advance care planning (ACP) intervention based on structured conversations impacts the relationship between patients with advanced cancer and their nominated Personal Representatives (PRs). Within the ACTION research project, a qualitative study was carried out in 4 countries (Italy, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Slovenia) to explore the lived experience of engagement with the ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention from the perspectives of patients and their PRs. A phenomenological approach was undertaken. Our findings show that taking part in the ACTION ACP intervention provides a communicative space for patients and their PRs to share their understanding and concerns about the illness and its consequences. In some cases, this may strengthen relationships by patients' and PRs' understanding and expectations and affirming their mutual commitment and support. The most significant consequence of the ACP process in our study was the deepening of mutual understanding and relationship between some patients and PRs and the enhancement of their sense of mutuality and connectedness in the present. However, being a relational intervention, ACP may raise some challenging and distressing issues. The interpersonal dynamics of the discussion require skilled and careful professional facilitation.

Background Awareness of preferences regarding medical care should be a central component of the care of patients with advanced cancer. Open communication can facilitate this but can occur in an ad hoc or variable manner. Advance care planning (ACP) is a formalized process of communication between patients, relatives and professional caregivers about patients’ values and care preferences. It raises awareness of the need to anticipate possible future deterioration of health. ACP has the potential to improve current and future healthcare decision-making, provide patients with a sense of control, and improve their quality of life. Methods/Design We will study the effects of the ACP program Respecting Choices on the quality of life of patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer. In a phase III multicenter cluster randomised controlled trial, 22 hospitals in 6 countries will be randomised. In the intervention sites, patients will be offered interviews with a trained facilitator. In the control sites, patients will receive care as usual. In total, 1360 patients will be included. All participating patients will be asked to complete questionnaires at inclusion, and again after 2.5 and 4.5 months. If a patient dies within a year after inclusion, a relative will be asked to complete a questionnaire on end-of-life care. Use of medical care will be assessed by checking medical files. The primary endpoint is patients’ quality of life at 2.5 months post-inclusion. Secondary endpoints are the extent to which care as received is aligned with patients’ preferences, patients’ evaluation of decision-making processes, quality of end-of-life care and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. A complementary qualitative study will be carried out to explore the lived experience of engagement with the Respecting Choices program from the perspectives of patients, their Personal Representatives, healthcare providers and facilitators. Discussion Transferring the concept of ACP from care of the elderly to patients with advanced cancer, who on average are younger and retain their mental capacity for a larger part of their disease trajectory, is an important next step in an era of increased focus on patient centered healthcare and shared decision-making. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN63110516 . Date of registration: 10/3/2014.

IntroductionAdequately addressing the needs of patients at the end of life and their relatives is pivotal in preventing unnecessary suffering and optimising their quality of life. The purpose of the iLIVE study is to contribute to high-quality personalised care at the end of life in different countries and cultures, by investigating the experiences, concerns, preferences and use of care of terminally ill patients and their families.Methods and analysisThe iLIVE study is an international cohort study in which patients with an estimated life expectancy of 6 months or less are followed up until they die. In total, 2200 patients will be included in 11 countries, that is, 200 per country. In addition, one relative per patient is invited to participate. All participants will be asked to fill in a questionnaire, at baseline and after 4 weeks. If a patient dies within 6 months of follow-up, the relative will be asked to fill in a post-bereavement questionnaire. Healthcare use in the last week of life will be evaluated as well; healthcare staff who attended the patient will be asked to fill in a brief questionnaire to evaluate the care that was provided. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with patients, relatives and healthcare professionals in all countries to gain more in-depth insights.Ethics and disseminationThe cohort study has been approved by ethics committees and the institutional review boards (IRBs) of participating institutes in all countries. Results will be disseminated through the project website, publications in scientific journals and at conferences. Within the project, there will be a working group focusing on enhancing the engagement of the community at large with the reality of death and dying.Trial registration numberNCT04271085.