Hamid Benalia

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

BackgroundDespite 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

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 20th 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Plain English summaryPatient 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.AbstractBackgroundPatient 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsFour 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.ConclusionsWhen 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.