Adam Walczak1, Phyllis N Butow2, Stella Bu2, Josephine M Clayton3. 1. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision- making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: adam.walczak@sydney.edu.au. 2. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision- making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision- making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; HammondCare Palliative and Supportive Care Service, Greenwich Hospital, Greenwich, NSW 2065, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and synthesise evidence for interventions targeting end-of-life communication. METHODS: Database, reference list and author searches were conducted to identify evaluations of end-of-life communication-focussed interventions. Data were extracted, synthesised and QUALSYST quality analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Interventions targeted patients (n=6), caregivers (n=3), healthcare professionals (HCPs n=24) and multiple stakeholders (n=12). Interventions took various forms including communication skills training, education, advance care planning and structured practice changes. Substantial heterogeneity in study designs, outcomes, settings and measures was apparent and study quality was variable. CONCLUSION: A substantial number of end-of-life communication interventions have been evaluated. Interventions have particularly targeted HCPs in cancer settings, though patient, caregiver and multi-focal interventions have also been evaluated. While some interventions were efficacious in well-designed RCTs, most evidence was from less robust studies. While additional interventions targeting patients and caregivers are needed, multi-focal interventions may more effectively remove barriers to end-of-life communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Despite the limitations evident in the existing literature, healthcare professionals may still derive useful insights into effective approaches to end-of-life communication if appropriate caution is exercised. However, additional RCTs, implementation studies and cost-benefit analyses are required to bolster arguments for implementing and resourcing communication interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and synthesise evidence for interventions targeting end-of-life communication. METHODS: Database, reference list and author searches were conducted to identify evaluations of end-of-life communication-focussed interventions. Data were extracted, synthesised and QUALSYST quality analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Interventions targeted patients (n=6), caregivers (n=3), healthcare professionals (HCPs n=24) and multiple stakeholders (n=12). Interventions took various forms including communication skills training, education, advance care planning and structured practice changes. Substantial heterogeneity in study designs, outcomes, settings and measures was apparent and study quality was variable. CONCLUSION: A substantial number of end-of-life communication interventions have been evaluated. Interventions have particularly targeted HCPs in cancer settings, though patient, caregiver and multi-focal interventions have also been evaluated. While some interventions were efficacious in well-designed RCTs, most evidence was from less robust studies. While additional interventions targeting patients and caregivers are needed, multi-focal interventions may more effectively remove barriers to end-of-life communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Despite the limitations evident in the existing literature, healthcare professionals may still derive useful insights into effective approaches to end-of-life communication if appropriate caution is exercised. However, additional RCTs, implementation studies and cost-benefit analyses are required to bolster arguments for implementing and resourcing communication interventions.
Keywords:
Advance care planning; Communication; Communication skills training; Education; End-of-life care; Evaluations; Interventions; Outcomes and measures; Practice changes; Question prompt list
Authors: Inge Henselmans; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Meltem Tokat; Ellen G Engelhardt; Pomme E A van Maarschalkerweerd; Marleen Kunneman; Petronella B Ottevanger; Serge E Dohmen; Geert-Jan Creemers; Dirkje W Sommeijer; Filip Y F L de Vos; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-06-29
Authors: Inge Henselmans; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Pomme van Maarschalkerweerd; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Dirkje W Sommeijer; Petronella B Ottevanger; Helle-Brit Fiebrich; Serge Dohmen; Geert-Jan Creemers; Filip Y F L de Vos; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-11-26
Authors: Hillary D Lum; Sarah R Jordan; Adreanne Brungardt; Roman Ayele; Maya Katz; Janis M Miyasaki; Anne Hall; Jacqueline Jones; Benzi Kluger Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lee Ellington; Kristin G Cloyes; Jiayun Xu; Lanell Bellury; Patricia H Berry; Maija Reblin; Margaret F Clayton Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2017-05-03
Authors: Frances R Nedjat-Haiem; Iraida V Carrion; Krystyna Gonzalez; Alejandra Quintana; Kathleen Ell; Mary O'Connell; Beti Thompson; Shiraz I Mishra Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Rachelle Bernacki; Joanna Paladino; Bridget A Neville; Mathilde Hutchings; Jane Kavanagh; Olaf P Geerse; Joshua Lakin; Justin J Sanders; Kate Miller; Stuart Lipsitz; Atul A Gawande; Susan D Block Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jane R Schubart; Jean M Reading; Janice Penrod; Renee R Stewart; Ramya Sampath; Lisa S Lehmann; Benjamin H Levi; Michael J Green Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.500