Taking patient and public involvement online: qualitative evaluation of an online forum for palliative care and rehabilitation research.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recognised as important in research. Most PPI takes place face-to-face, but this can be difficult for people who are unwell or have caring responsibilities. As these challenges are particularly common in palliative care and rehabilitation research, we developed an online forum for PPI: www.csipublicinvolvement.co.uk. In this study, we explored how well the online forum worked, if it is a suitable method for PPI, and how PPI members and researchers reacted to using it. We used an existing theory about online interventions to help choose the 'right' questions to ask participants. We invited PPI members and researchers who had used the online forum to participate in focus groups, and identified the most important themes discussed. Within this study, PPI members have helped with the interview questions, analysis, and write up. Overall, four PPI members and five researchers participated in the focus groups. Participants felt the online forum worked well and had multiple benefits. From the discussions, we identified four key questions to consider when developing online methods for PPI: how does the forum work, how does it engage people, how does it empower people, and what is the impact? Participants suggested the forum could be improved by being more PPI and less researcher focused. We conclude that when developing online methods of PPI, a functioning forum is not enough: it also needs to be engaging and empowering to have an impact. Future work can use these four domains when developing their own online PPI methods. BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly recognised as important. Most PPI activities take place face-to-face, yet this can be difficult for people with ill health or caring responsibilities, and may exclude people from hard-to-reach populations (e.g. living in vulnerable social circumstances and/or remote geographical locations). These challenges are particularly pertinent in palliative care and rehabilitation research where people often live with, or care for someone with, advanced illness. In response to this, we aimed to test the functionality, feasibility, and acceptability of an online forum for PPI for palliative care and rehabilitation research (www.csipublicinvolvement.co.uk). METHODS: We conducted separate focus groups with PPI members and researchers who had used the online forum. Data collection was underpinned by DeLone and Mclean's model of information systems success. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Dual coding by two authors ensured rigour, and attention was paid to divergent cases. RESULTS: Four PPI members and five researchers participated in the focus groups (two PPI focus groups, one researcher focus group). The online forum was perceived as functional, feasible, and acceptable. Our analysis identified four key questions to consider when developing online methods for PPI: (1) how does the forum work, (2) how does it engage people, (3) how does it empower people, and (4) what is the impact? PPI members felt that the online forum was too researcher led, and needed to be more PPI focussed. CONCLUSIONS: When developing online methods of PPI, a functioning forum is not enough: it also needs to be engaging and empowering to have an impact. To optimise online involvement, future work should refer to these four domains and balance the needs of researchers and PPI members.

"I Can Breathe Again!" Patients' Self-Management Strategies for Episodic Breathlessness in Advanced Disease, Derived From Qualitative Interviews.

CONTEXT: Episodic breathlessness causes additional distress to breathless patients with advanced disease, but management is still insufficient and there is a lack of knowledge on effective coping strategies. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to explore patients' self-management strategies for episodic breathlessness. METHODS: In-depth interviews with patients suffering from episodic breathlessness as a result of chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, or motor neuron disease were conducted. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed guided by the analytic hierarchy of Framework analysis. RESULTS: A total of 51 participants were interviewed (15 chronic heart failure, 14 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 13 lung cancer, and nine motor neuron disease; age, mean [SD], 68 [12], 41% women, median Karnofsky index 60%). They described six main strategies for coping with episodes of breathlessness: reduction of physical exertion, cognitive and psychological strategies, breathing techniques and positions, air and oxygen, drugs and medical devices, and environmental and other strategies. Some strategies were used in an opposing way, e.g., concentrating on the breathing vs. distraction from any thoughts of breathlessness or laying down flat vs. standing up and raising hands. CONCLUSION: Patients used a number of different strategies to cope with episodic breathlessness, adding more detailed understanding of existing strategies for breathlessness. The findings, therefore, may provide a valuable aid for health care providers, affected patients, and their relatives.

Mixed methods research in the development and evaluation of complex interventions in palliative and end-of-life care: report on the MORECare consensus exercise.

BACKGROUND: Complex interventions are common in palliative and end-of-life care. Mixed methods approaches sit well within the multiphase model of complex intervention development and evaluation. Generic mixed methods guidance is useful but additional challenges in the research design and operationalization within palliative and end-of-life care may have an impact on the use of mixed methods. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to develop guidance on the best methods for combining quantitative and qualitative methods for health and social care intervention development and evaluation in palliative and end-of-life care. METHODS: A one-day workshop was held where experts participated in facilitated groups using Transparent Expert Consultation to generate items for potential recommendations. Agreement and consensus were then sought on nine draft recommendations (DRs) in a follow-up exercise. RESULTS: There was at least moderate agreement with most of the DRs, although consensus was low. Strongest agreement was with DR1 (usefulness of mixed methods to palliative and end-of-life care) and DR5 (importance of attention to respondent burden), and least agreement was with DR2 (use of theoretical perspectives) and DR6 (therapeutic effects of research interviews). Narrative comments enabled recommendation refinement. Two fully endorsed, five partially endorsed, and two refined DRs emerged. The relationship of these nine to six key challenges of palliative and end-of-life care research was analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further discussion of these recommendations and their contribution to methodology. The recommendations should be considered when designing and operationalizing mixed methods studies of complex interventions in palliative care, and because they may have wider relevance, should be considered for other applications.

Recommendations for managing missing data, attrition and response shift in palliative and end-of-life care research: part of the MORECare research method guidance on statistical issues.

BACKGROUND: Statistical analysis in palliative and end-of-life care research can be problematic due to high levels of missing data, attrition and response shift as disease progresses. AIM: To develop recommendations about managing missing data, attrition and response shift in palliative and end-of-life care research data. DESIGN: We used the MORECare Transparent Expert Consultation approach to conduct a consultation workshop with experts in statistical methods in palliative and end-of-life care research. Following presentations and discussion, nominal group techniques were used to produce recommendations about attrition, missing data and response shift. These were rated online by experts and analysed using descriptive statistics for consensus and importance. RESULTS: In total, 20 participants attended the workshop and 19 recommendations were subsequently ranked. There was broad agreement across recommendations. The top five recommendations were as follows: A taxonomy should be devised to define types of attrition. Types and amount of missing data should be reported with details of imputation methods. The pattern of missing data should be investigated to inform the imputation approach. A statistical analysis plan should be pre-specified in the protocol. High rates of attrition should be assumed when planning studies and specifying analyses. The leading recommendation for response shift was for more research. CONCLUSIONS: When designing studies in palliative and end-of-life care, it is recommended that high rates of attrition should not be seen as indicative of poor design and that a clear statistical analysis plan is in place to account for missing data and attrition.

The selection and use of outcome measures in palliative and end-of-life care research: the MORECare International Consensus Workshop.

CONTEXT: A major barrier to widening and sustaining palliative care service provision is the requirement for better selection and use of outcome measures. Service commissioning is increasingly based on patient, carer, and service outcomes as opposed to service activity. OBJECTIVES: To generate recommendations and consensus for research in palliative and end-of-life care on the properties of the best outcome measures, enhancing the validity of proxy-reported data and optimal data collection time points. METHODS: An international expert "workshop" was convened and an online consensus survey was undertaken using the MORECare Transparent Expert Consultation to generate recommendations and level of agreement. We focused on three areas: 1) measurement properties, 2) use of proxies, and 3) measurement timing. Data analysis comprised descriptive analysis of aggregate scores and collation of narrative comments. RESULTS: There were 31 workshop attendees; 29 recommendations were included in the online survey, completed by 28 experts. The top three recommendations by area were the following: 1) the properties of the best outcome measures are responsive to change over time and capture clinically important data, 2) to enhance the validity of proxy data requires clear and specific guidelines to aid lay individuals' and/or professionals' completion of proxy measures, and 3) data collection time points need clear identification to establish a baseline. CONCLUSION: Outcome measurement in palliative and end-of-life care requires the use of psychometrically robust measures that are clinically responsive, with defined data collection time points to establish a baseline and clear administration guidelines to complete proxy measures. To further the field requires clinical imperatives to more closely inform recommendations on outcome measurement.

MORECare research methods guidance development: recommendations for ethical issues in palliative and end-of-life care research.

BACKGROUND: There is little guidance on the particular ethical concerns that research raises with a palliative care population. AIM: To present the process and outcomes of a workshop and consensus exercise on agreed best practice to accommodate ethical issues in research on palliative care. DESIGN: Consultation workshop using the MORECare Transparent Expert Consultation approach. Prior to workshops, participants were sent overviews of ethical issues in palliative care. Following the workshop, nominal group techniques were used to produce candidate recommendations. These were rated online by participating experts. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse agreement and consensus. Narrative comments were collated. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Experts in ethical issues and palliative care research were invited to the Cicely Saunders Institute in London. They included senior researchers, service providers, commissioners, researchers, members of ethics committees and policy makers. RESULTS: The workshop comprised 28 participants. A total of 16 recommendations were developed. There was high agreement on the issue of research participation and high to moderate agreement on applications to research ethics committees. The recommendations on obtaining and maintaining consent from patients and families were the most contentious. Nine recommendations were refined on the basis of the comments from the online consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The culture surrounding palliative care research needs to change by fostering collaborative approaches between all those involved in the research process. Changes to the legal framework governing the research process are required to enhance the ethical conduct of research in palliative care. The recommendations are relevant to all areas of research involving vulnerable adults.

Dying at home--is it better: a narrative appraisal of the state of the science.

BACKGROUND: Achieving home care and home death is increasingly used as an outcome measure of palliative care services. AIM: To appraise the state of the science on dying at home. METHODS: Appraisal and narrative review developed from a plenary presentation at the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) 2012 meeting examining the research on variations and trends in place of death, factors associated with dying in the preferred place, presenting evidence on outcomes for those dying at home and suggesting future research questions. RESULTS: Meeting patients' preferences and creating home-like environments has been a major concern for hospice and palliative care since its inception. During the 20(th) century, in many countries, hospital deaths increased and home deaths reduced. Despite the fact that this trend has been halted or reversed in some countries (notably the United States, Canada and, more recently, the United Kingdom) in the last 5-20 years, a home death is still a distant reality for the majority, even though evidence shows it is the most commonly preferred place to die. Epidemiological studies identified factors associated with home death, including affluence, patients' preferences, provision of home care and extended family support. Evidence about the benefits of home care is conflicting, but recent data suggest that holistic well-being may be greater at home. IMPLICATIONS: We call for further analyses of variations in place of care and place of death and robust studies on how patients and families formulate and change preferences over time. Regular monitoring of outcomes, quality and costs of palliative home care is urged.

Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field. METHODS: The Methods Of Researching End of life Care (MORECare) project built on the Medical Research Council guidance on the development and evaluation of complex circumstances. We conducted systematic literature reviews, transparent expert consultations (TEC) involving consensus methods of nominal group and online voting, and stakeholder workshops to identify challenges and best practice in EoLC research, including: participation recruitment, ethics, attrition, integration of mixed methods, complex outcomes and economic evaluation. We synthesised all findings to develop a guidance statement on the best methods to research EoLC. RESULTS: We integrated data from three systematic reviews and five TECs with 133 online responses. We recommend research designs extending beyond randomised trials and encompassing mixed methods. Patients and families value participation in research, and consumer or patient collaboration in developing studies can resolve some ethical concerns. It is ethically desirable to offer patients and families the opportunity to participate in research. Outcome measures should be short, responsive to change and ideally used for both clinical practice and research. Attrition should be anticipated in studies and may affirm inclusion of the relevant population, but careful reporting is necessitated using a new classification. Eventual implementation requires consideration at all stages of the project. CONCLUSIONS: The MORECare statement provides 36 best practice solutions for research evaluating services and treatments in EoLC to improve study quality and set the standard for future research. The statement may be used alongside existing statements and provides a first step in setting common, much needed standards for evaluative research in EoLC. These are relevant to those undertaking research, trainee researchers, research funders, ethical committees and editors.

Episodes of breathlessness: types and patterns - a qualitative study exploring experiences of patients with advanced diseases.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence and impact of episodic breathlessness, information about characteristics and patterns is scarce. AIM: To explore the experience of patients with advanced disease suffering from episodic breathlessness, in order to describe types and patterns. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative design using in-depth interviews with patients suffering from advanced stages of chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer or motor neurone disease. As part of the interviews, patients were asked to draw a graph to illustrate typical patterns of breathlessness episodes. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. The graphs were grouped according to their patterns. RESULTS: Fifty-one participants (15 chronic heart failure, 14 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 13 lung cancer and 9 motor neurone disease) were included (mean age 68.2 years, 30 of 51 men, mean Karnofsky 63.1, mean breathlessness intensity 3.2 of 10). Five different types of episodic breathlessness were described: triggered with normal level of breathlessness, triggered with predictable response (always related to trigger level, e.g. slight exertion causes severe breathlessness), triggered with unpredictable response (not related to trigger level), non-triggered attack-like (quick onset, often severe) and wave-like (triggered or non-triggered, gradual onset). Four patterns of episodic breathlessness could be identified based on the graphs with differences regarding onset and recovery of episodes. These did not correspond with the types of breathlessness described before. CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced disease experience clearly distinguishable types and patterns of episodic breathlessness. The understanding of these will help clinicians to tailor specific management strategies for patients who suffer from episodes of breathlessness.

Episodic and continuous breathlessness: a new categorization of breathlessness.

CONTEXT: Unlike pain, where the concept of breakthrough and background pain has been widely characterized and defined, breathlessness as a symptom has not yet been fully explored and has been rarely categorized. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' experiences and descriptions of breathlessness to categorize breathlessness. METHODS: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews with patients suffering from four life-limiting and advanced diseases (chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and motor neuron disease). Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using Framework analysis. RESULTS: A total of 51 participants were interviewed (mean ± SD age 68.2 ± 11.6 years; 30 of 51 male; median Karnofsky 60%; mean ± SD breathlessness intensity 3.2 ± 1.7 of 10). Episodic breathlessness and continuous breathlessness were the main categories, with subcategories of triggered and non-triggered episodic breathlessness and continuous breathlessness for short and long periods. Episodic breathlessness triggered by exertion, non-triggered episodic breathlessness, and continuous breathlessness for a long period ("constant variable") were the most frequent and important categories with a high impact on daily living. Exertional breathlessness occurred in nearly all participants. Participants could differentiate episodic breathlessness (seconds, minutes, or hours) and continuous breathlessness (days, weeks, or months) by time. Episodic breathlessness occurred in isolation or in conjunction with continuous breathlessness. CONCLUSION: Participants categorize their breathlessness by time and triggers. The categorization needs further verification, similar to that already established in pain, and can be used as a new evidence-based categorization to advance our understanding of this under-researched, yet high impact, symptom to optimize management.

Acceptability and preferences of six different routes of drug application for acute breathlessness: a comparison study between the United Kingdom and Germany.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are the drugs of choice for management of breathlessness in advanced disease, but acute episodic breathlessness remains difficult to manage. New routes of opioid applications with quicker onset of action seem attractive for the management of episodic breathlessness. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the acceptability and preference of different routes of opioid applications in patients suffering from breathlessness due to advanced disease. DESIGN: The study consisted of structured face-to-face interviews with patients suffering from breathlessness due to lung cancer (LC), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), and motor neurone disease (MND). Images and explanation were used to illustrate six application forms (oral, inhaled, sublingual, intranasal, buccal, transmucosal). RESULTS: Participants numbered 119 (UK n=48, Germany n=71), 60% male, mean age 67.7 years (SD 9.9); 50% suffered from COPD. Inhaled was the most accepted (87%) and preferred (68%) route of application, followed by sublingual (45%/13%) and intranasal (42%/8%). The oral was least accepted (24%) and least preferred (9%) although nearly all participants had previous experiences with it (97%). Ratings were similar in both countries but different for preferences of sublingual (UK>Germany) and intranasal (Germany>UK). In general, participants from the UK rated more often "yes" for acceptability of all routes compared to Germany. CONCLUSION: Inhaled was the most accepted and preferred route of application, but no route seemed to be acceptable to all patients. Therefore, individual patient preferences should be explored before drug prescription to enhance compliance and convenience.

Republished: which questions of two commonly used multidimensional palliative care patient reported outcome measures are most useful? Results from the European and African PRISMA survey.

AIM: To evaluate the views of clinicians and researchers on their use of outcome measures and which questions are most important in palliative and end-of-life care. METHODS: Online survey of professionals working in clinical care, clinical audit and research in palliative care across Europe and Africa identified through national and international associations and databases. Questions focused on measures used, reasons and which questions were important in two commonly used multidimensional measures, the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS) and the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS). RESULTS: The overall completion rate was 59% (392/663). Three outcome measures were commonly used by over one in four respondents for clinical practice and over one in 10 for research: the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), followed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the POS. Measures were used twice as often in clinical practice as in research. The main uses were similar: assessing patients' symptoms/needs (88% and 85% of POS and STAS users, respectively), monitoring changes (62%, 58%), evaluating care (61%, 48%) and assessing family needs (59%, 60%). Respondents rated the most important questions as pain, symptoms, emotional and family aspects. There were no differences in the choice of the most important questions between doctors and nurses or between researchers and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: In palliative care, outcome measures often used in clinical practice are also often used in research. Questions relating to pain, symptoms, emotional needs and family concerns are consistently considered the most useful and important in palliative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Outcomes 'out of africa': the selection and implementation of outcome measures for palliative care in Africa.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life care research across Africa is under-resourced and under-developed. A central issue in research in end-of-life care is the measurement of effects and outcomes of care on patients and families. Little is known about the experiences of health professionals' selection and implementation of outcome measures (OM) in clinical care, research, audit, or teaching in Africa. METHODS: An online survey was undertaken of those using outcome measures across the region, as part of the PRISMA project. A questionnaire addressing the use of OMs was developed for a similar survey in Europe and adapted for Africa. Participants were sampled through the contacts database of APCA. Invitation emails were sent out in January 2010 and reminders in February 2010. RESULTS: 168/301 invited contacts (56%) from 24 countries responded, with 78 respondents having previously used OM (65% in clinical practice, 12% in research and 23% for both). Main reasons for not using OM were a lack of guidance/training on using and analysing OM, with 49% saying that they would use the tools if this was provided. 40% of those using OM in clinical practice used POS, and 80% used them to assess, evaluate and monitor change. The POS was also the main tool used in research, with the principle criteria for use being validation in Africa, access to the tool and time needed to complete it. Challenges to the use of tools were shortage of time and resources, lack of guidance and training for the professionals, poor health status of patients and complexity of OM. Researchers also have problems analysing OM data. The APCA African POS was the most common version of the POS used, and was reported as a valuable tool for measuring outcomes. Respondents indicated the ideal outcome tool should be short, multi-dimensional and easy to use. CONCLUSION: This was the first survey on professionals' views on OM in Africa. It showed that the APCA African POS was the most frequently OM used. Training and support are needed to help professionals utilise OM in palliative care, and OMs have an ongoing and important role in palliative care in Africa.

Which questions of two commonly used multidimensional palliative care patient reported outcome measures are most useful? Results from the European and African PRISMA survey.

AIM: To evaluate the views of clinicians and researchers on their use of outcome measures and which questions are most important in palliative and end-of-life care. METHODS: Online survey of professionals working in clinical care, clinical audit and research in palliative care across Europe and Africa identified through national and international associations and databases. Questions focused on measures used, reasons and which questions were important in two commonly used multidimensional measures, the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS) and the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS). RESULTS: The overall completion rate was 59% (392/663). Three outcome measures were commonly used by over one in four respondents for clinical practice and over one in 10 for research: the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), followed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the POS. Measures were used twice as often in clinical practice as in research. The main uses were similar: assessing patients' symptoms/needs (88% and 85% of POS and STAS users, respectively), monitoring changes (62%, 58%), evaluating care (61%, 48%) and assessing family needs (59%, 60%). Respondents rated the most important questions as pain, symptoms, emotional and family aspects. There were no differences in the choice of the most important questions between doctors and nurses or between researchers and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: In palliative care, outcome measures often used in clinical practice are also often used in research. Questions relating to pain, symptoms, emotional needs and family concerns are consistently considered the most useful and important in palliative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

The PRISMA Symposium 1: outcome tool use. Disharmony in European outcomes research for palliative and advanced disease care: too many tools in practice.

CONTEXT: As the European population ages and the number of cancer deaths annually increases, there is an urgent requirement to provide high-quality, effective care. The measurement of outcomes in advanced disease is complex, and to conduct comparative research and meta-analyses, appropriate tool selection is essential. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the outcome tools currently in use in end-of-life care (both clinically and for research) across Europe and investigate the preferred features of outcome tools from the perspective of those who select and apply them. METHODS: A pan-European Internet-based survey of tool users was conducted in research and clinical populations. Respondents were asked to identify the tools they are using and describe ideal features of the measures. The study was conducted in accordance with guidance for best practice in web-based research. RESULTS: Of the 311 participants who completed a survey, 99 tools in clinical care and audit, and 94 in research, were cited by less than 10 participants. Further data revealed that respondents require the number of potential tools to be rationalized and that brief tools are favored. CONCLUSION: The selection of valid and appropriate tools for palliative care populations requires expert guidance and support to ensure that clinicians and researchers are collecting data that have validity and potential for comparison within and between populations and countries.

Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care--users' cry for help.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) plays an increasingly important role in palliative care. A variety of measures exists and is used in clinical care, audit and research. However, little is known about professionals' views using these measures. The aim of this study is to describe the use and experiences of palliative care professionals with outcome measures. METHODS: A web-based online survey was conducted in Europe and Africa. Professionals working in clinical care, audit and research in palliative care were invited to the survey via national palliative care associations and various databases. Invitation e-mails were sent with a link to the questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall participation rate 42% (663/1592), overall completion rate 59% (392/663). The majority of respondents were female (63.4%), mean age 46 years (SD 9). 68.1% respondents from Europe and 73.3% from Africa had experiences with outcome measures in palliative care. Non-users reported time constraints, burden, lack of training and guidance as main reasons. In clinical care/audit, assessment of patients' situation, monitoring changes and evaluation of services were main reasons for use. Choice of OMs for research was influenced by validity of the instrument in palliative care and comparability with international literature. Main problems were related to patient characteristics, staff, and outcome measures. Participants expressed the need for more guidance and training in the use of PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals need more support for the use and implementation of PROMs in clinical practice and research through training and guidance in order to improve patient care.