Peter Hudson1,2,3, Afaf Girgis4, Kristina Thomas1, Jennifer Philip1,2,5, David C Currow6, Geoffrey Mitchell7, Deborah Parker6, Danny Liew8, Caroline Brand8, Brian Le9, Juli Moran10. 1. St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Vrije University Brussels, Belgium. 4. Centre for Oncology Education and Research Translation, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, The University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney), NSW, Australia. 5. Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Australia. 6. University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 7. University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia. 8. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia. 9. Melbourne Health, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 10. Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family meetings facilitate the exploration of issues and goals of care however, there has been minimal research to determine the benefits and cost implications. AIMS: To determine: (1) if family caregivers of hospitalised patients referred to palliative care who receive a structured family meeting report lower psychological distress (primary outcome), fewer unmet needs, improved quality of life; feel more prepared for the caregiving role; and receive better quality of end-of-life care; (2) if outcomes vary dependant upon site of care and; (3) the cost-benefit of implementing meetings into routine practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial involving palliative care patients and their primary family caregivers at three Australian hospitals. Participants completed measures upon admission (Time 1); 10 days later (Time 2) and two months after the patient died (Time 3). Regression analyses, health utilisation and process evaluation were conducted. RESULTS:297 dyads recruited; control (n = 153) and intervention (n = 144). The intervention group demonstrated significantly lower psychological distress (Diff: -1.68, p < 0.01) and higher preparedness (Diff: 3.48, p = 0.001) at Time 2. No differences were identified based on quality of end of life care or health utilisation measures. CONCLUSIONS: Family meetings may be helpful in reducing family caregiver distress and enhancing their preparedness for the caregiving role and it appears they may be conducted without increased hospital health utilisation impacts; although opportunity costs need to be considered in order to routinely offer these as a standardised intervention. Additional health economic examination is also advocated to comprehensively understand the cost-benefit implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000200583.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Family meetings facilitate the exploration of issues and goals of care however, there has been minimal research to determine the benefits and cost implications. AIMS: To determine: (1) if family caregivers of hospitalised patients referred to palliative care who receive a structured family meeting report lower psychological distress (primary outcome), fewer unmet needs, improved quality of life; feel more prepared for the caregiving role; and receive better quality of end-of-life care; (2) if outcomes vary dependant upon site of care and; (3) the cost-benefit of implementing meetings into routine practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial involving palliative care patients and their primary family caregivers at three Australian hospitals. Participants completed measures upon admission (Time 1); 10 days later (Time 2) and two months after the patient died (Time 3). Regression analyses, health utilisation and process evaluation were conducted. RESULTS: 297 dyads recruited; control (n = 153) and intervention (n = 144). The intervention group demonstrated significantly lower psychological distress (Diff: -1.68, p < 0.01) and higher preparedness (Diff: 3.48, p = 0.001) at Time 2. No differences were identified based on quality of end of life care or health utilisation measures. CONCLUSIONS: Family meetings may be helpful in reducing family caregiver distress and enhancing their preparedness for the caregiving role and it appears they may be conducted without increased hospital health utilisation impacts; although opportunity costs need to be considered in order to routinely offer these as a standardised intervention. Additional health economic examination is also advocated to comprehensively understand the cost-benefit implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000200583.
Entities:
Keywords:
Palliative; cost benefit analysis; emotional distress; family caregivers; health care economics; health related quality of life; intervention study; pragmatic clinical trials; randomised clinical trial
Authors: Rebecca E Ryan; Michael Connolly; Natalie K Bradford; Simon Henderson; Anthony Herbert; Lina Schonfeld; Jeanine Young; Josephine I Bothroyd; Amanda Henderson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-07-08
Authors: Elizabeth M Goldberg; Michelle P Lin; Laura G Burke; Frances N Jiménez; Natalie M Davoodi; Roland C Merchant Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 3.921