Nationwide Survey on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in Cancer Patients Who Died at Palliative Care Units in Japan: Prevalence of CAM and Family Experience

<p>The aim of this study was to understand the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer patients in Japan. This study was part of the Japan Hospice and Palliative care Evaluation 2016 (J-HOPE2016) Study. A multicenter questionnaire survey was conducted on a sample of bereaved family members of cancer patients who died at palliative care units. Data suggest that 54% of cancer patients use CAM. In comparison with a previous study in 2005 in Japan, categories of CAM vary widely; CAM previously included supplements mostly, but now exercise and mind and body therapy are also used. Most cancer patients use CAM without any harmful influence on their household economy and cancer treatment; however, in some patients, CAM incurs a large expense and a delay in starting cancer treatment. Therefore, it is important for medical staff and patients to have an opportunity to discuss CAM use. Multiple logistic regression analysis shows that CAM use is significantly associated with younger patients and highly educated families; moreover, there is a possibility that family members who use CAM have a high level of psychological distress. We must pay attention to the physical and the psychological aspects of cancer patients who use CAM and their families. Further studies are needed to investigate the use of each category of CAM, and to understand patients who use CAM and who die at home or in hospitals other than palliative care units.</p>

Why Patients in Institutions with Religious Background Achieve ‘Good Death’ ? : Findings from National Bereavement Survey of 127 Hospice and Palliative Care Units

<p>Previous study reported that patients of institutions with religious background are more likely to achieve ‘good death’ than patients in non-religious institutions, although the reasons are unclear. This study aims to examine the reasons for this difference using a national survey of religious and non-religious institutions. We sent a self-administered questionnaire to 10,715 bereaved family caregiver and 133 hospice and palliative care units which cared for their family members prior to death. The questionnaire for bereaved families included the Good Death Inventory (GDI). The questionnaire for institutions included their religious affiliation and their subjective and objective provided care. In total, 7,286 bereaved families (68%) and 127 (95%) institutions including 23 religious end-of-life care institutions responded. We performed t-test and χ-square test to compare the GDI scores and provided care for religious and non-religious end-of-life care institutions. The GDI total score was significantly higher (p=0.01) in religious institutions compared to non-religious institutions. Items such as “providing many activities for seasonal events to the patients”, “providing more bereavement care”, “having facilities to practice their religion”, and “having regular visits from religious leaders”, were all reported more frequently in the religious institutions, and significantly associated with achievement of ‘good death’ (p<0.05 for all items). This study suggests that factors for achieving ‘good death’ are not only limited to providing religious care but also providing other forms of care, services, and activities that can enhance the patients’ ‘good death’.</p>

Practical Use of Feedback Report of Nationwide Bereavement Survey in Participated Institutions

<p>Aims: The aim of this study was to clarify practical use of feedback report in each institution participated the nationwide bereavement survey (J-HOPE3). Methods: After a nationwide bereavement survey (J-HOPE3) conducted in 2014, we sent a feedback report to each participated institution (20 general wards, 133 inpatient palliative care units, and 22 home hospice services). The feedback report included the results from quality of care, bereaved family’s mental status, and free comments from the participant of their own institution. We sent a questionnaire 4 month following to the feedback report for all institutions regarding the practical use of results from the feedback report. Results: The analysis included 129 (response rate 74%) returned questionnaires. The institutions that they passed around the report was 90%, discussed about their results at a staff meeting was 54%, and reported the results to manager/chief of the institution was 65%. Around 80% of the institutions responded positively to receive the feedback report of their own institution such as “It was good that they could understand the strengths and weakness of their own institutions” which reported that they worked on to improve care were 48%. Conclusions: Current study had shown data about practical use of the feedback report of bereavement study. It is important to feedback the results and encourage the institution to make use of the results in their daily practice, especially to discuss the results in staff meetings.</p>