Relatives' Unmet Needs in the Last Year of Life of Patients With Advanced Cancer: Results of a Dutch Prospective, Longitudinal Study (eQuiPe).

Objective(s): Unmet needs of relatives of patients with advanced cancer not only reduce their own health-related quality of life, but may also negatively affect patients' health outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess changes in relatives' unmet needs of patients with advanced cancer in the last year of life and to identify differences in unmet needs by gender and type of relationship. Methods: Relatives of patients with advanced cancer in the Netherlands were included in a prospective, longitudinal, observational study. Relatives' unmet needs were measured every 3 months with an adapted version of the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care (PNPC) questionnaire Caregiver form (44 items, 12 domains). Questionnaires completed in the patients' last year of life were analyzed. Change of unmet needs in the last year, and differences in unmet needs by gender and type of relationship were analyzed. Results: A total of 409 relatives were included with a median of 4 unmet needs in the patient's last year. Unmet needs were most prevalent at all time points during the last year in the domains "caring for the patient" (highest need = 35%) and "psychological issues" (highest need = 40%). The number of unmet needs of relatives did not change significantly during the last year of life (P=.807). There were no significant differences in the number of unmet needs between male and female partners and between partners and other relatives. Conclusion: The most unmet needs for relatives were in the domains "caring for the patient" and "psychological issues." Professional support should focus on these items. Within these domains, it seems especially important that relatives get more knowledge and support about what scenarios to expect and how to deal with them.

Managing cancer and living meaningfully (CALM): Implementation in Dutch cancer care.

OBJECTIVE: Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM) is a brief, evidence-based psychotherapy tailored for patients with advanced cancer that has not yet been implemented routinely in Dutch cancer care. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, sustainability and effectiveness of CALM in different clinical settings in the Netherlands. METHODS: In 2019 and 2020 a multi-center, intervention-only study was performed in three Dutch cancer care settings. Professionals were trained to provide CALM under supervision. Patients diagnosed with advanced cancer were included and filled out questionnaires to measure depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), death anxiety (Death and Dying Distress Scale), and anxiety (hospital anxiety and depression scale-anxiety) at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The Clinical Evaluation Questionnaire was used to assess acceptability of CALM at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (55% of the eligible patients) were included in the study and 85% of the included patients received 3 or more CALM sessions. Of the 24 trained therapists, 15 (63%) started providing CALM. Two years post-study, CALM was provided in each center by a total of 19 therapists. On average, patients perceived CALM to be at least somewhat helpful. A significant decrease in severity of depression (p = 0.006), death anxiety (p = 0.008), and anxiety (p = 0.024) was observed over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that CALM therapy is feasible, acceptable, and sustainable in three Dutch cancer care settings, although not all predefined feasibility criteria for therapists were met. CALM can be effective in decreasing feelings of depression, anxiety, and death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer.

Self-management and adherence to recommended follow-up after gynaecological cancer: results from the international InCHARGE study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between self-management skills and adherence to follow-up guidelines among gynecological cancer survivors in the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, and to assess the relationship between adherence to follow-up programs and use of additional healthcare services. METHODS: For this international, multicenter, cross-sectional study, we recruited gynecological cancer survivors 1-5 years after completion of treatment. Information on follow-up visits, use of healthcare resources, self-management (measured by the Health Education Impact Questionnaire), clinical characteristics, and demographics were obtained by validated questionnaires. Participants were categorized as adherent if they attended the number of follow-up visits recommended by national guidelines, non-adherent if they had fewer visits than recommended, or over-users if they had more visits than recommended. RESULTS: Of 4455 invited survivors, 2428 (55%) returned the questionnaires, and 911 survivors were included in the analyses. Survivors with high self-management most frequently adhered to recommended follow-up. Non-adherent survivors showed lower self-management in the health-directed activity domain (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.32) than adherent survivors. No other associations between self-management and follow-up adherence were revealed. Non-adherent survivors tended to have endometrial cancer, surgical treatment only, be older, and be Danish residents. Over-users reported more follow-up visits and also used additional healthcare services more frequently than adherent survivors. CONCLUSION: Low self-management appears to reduce the likelihood of adherence to national guidelines for gynecological cancer follow-up. Focusing on patient education for survivors at risk of low self-management to ensure adherence to recommended follow-up may improve personalization of follow-up.