Search

ObjectivesTo explore intercountry and intracountry differences in physician opinions about continuous use of sedatives (CUS), and factors associated with their approval of CUS.SettingsSecondary analysis of a questionnaire study.ParticipantsPalliative care physicians in Germany (N=273), Italy (N=198), Japan (N=334) and the UK (N=111).Primary and secondary outcome measuresPhysician approval for CUS in four situations, intention and treatment goal, how to use sedatives and beliefs about CUS.ResultsThere were no significant intercountry or intracountry differences in the degree of agreement with statements that (1) CUS is not necessary as suffering can always be relieved with other measures (mostly disagree); (2) intention of CUS is to alleviate suffering and (3) shortening the dying process is not intended. However, there were significant intercountry differences in agreement with statements that (1) CUS is acceptable for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering; (2) decrease in consciousness is intended and (3) choice of neuroleptics or opioids. Acceptability of CUS for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering and whether decrease in consciousness is intended also showed wide intracountry differences. Also, the proportion of physicians who agreed versus disagreed with the statement that CUS may not alleviate suffering adequately even in unresponsive patients, was approximately equal. Regression analyses revealed that both physician-related and country-related factors were independently associated with physicians’ approval of CUS.ConclusionVariations in use of sedatives is due to both physician- and country-related factors, but palliative care physicians consistently agree on the value of sedatives to aid symptom control. Future research should focus on (1) whether sedatives should be used in patients with longer survival or with primarily psychoexistential suffering, (2) understanding physicians’ intentions and treatment goals, (3) efficacy of different drugs and (4) understanding the actual experiences of patients receiving CUS.

IntroductionEffective doctor–patient communication in oncology settings can be challenging due to the complexity of the cancer disease trajectory. The challenges can become greater when doctors and patients do not share a common language and need to rely on language mediators. The aim of this study is to provide evidence-based recommendations for healthcare professionals, patients and language mediators on how to interact with each other during language-mediated consultations in oncology settings.Methods and analysisA systematic review of the literature on communication problems in monolingual and multilingual oncology settings will be conducted. Thirty language-mediated consultations with Turkish-speaking or Arabic-speaking cancer patients, language mediators and Dutch-speaking oncologists/haematologists will be video-recorded in three urban hospitals in Flanders, Belgium. All participants will be interviewed immediately after the consultation and 2 weeks after it by means of video-stimulated recall. Multimodal interaction analysis will be combined with qualitative content analysis to allow for the identification of communication practices when communication problems occur.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the following ethics committees: Ghent University Hospital, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp Hospitals Network (ZNA). Results will be published via (inter)national peer-reviewed journals and the findings of the study will be communicated using a comprehensive dissemination strategy aimed at healthcare professionals, patients and language mediators.

Introduction Informal caregivers provide the majority of care to individuals with chronic health conditions, benefiting the care recipient and reducing use of formal care services. However, providing informal care negatively impacts the mental health of many caregivers. E-mental health interventions have emerged as a way to provide accessible mental healthcare to caregivers. Much attention has been given to reviewing the effectiveness and efficacy of such interventions, however, factors related to implementation have received less consideration. Therefore, this mixed-methods systematic review will aim to examine factors associated with the effectiveness and implementation of e-mental health interventions for caregivers.Methods and analysis Eligible studies published since 1 January 2007 will be searched for in several electronic databases (CINAHL Plus with Full Text, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science), clinical trial registries and OpenGrey, with all screening steps conducted by two independent reviewers. Studies will be included if they focus on the implementation or effectiveness of e-mental health interventions designed for informal adult caregivers of adults with cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, dementia or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pragmatic randomised controlled trials quantitatively reporting on caregiver anxiety, depression, psychological distress or stress will be used for a qualitative comparative analysis to identify combinations of conditions that result in effective interventions. Qualitative and quantitative data on implementation of e-mental health interventions for caregivers will be integrated in a thematic synthesis to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation. These results will inform future development and implementation planning of e-mental health interventions for caregivers.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this study as no primary data will be collected. Results will be disseminated in the form of a scientific publication and presentations at academic conferences and plain language summaries for various stakeholders.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020155727.

ObjectiveTo examine recent time trends in the incidence of osteonecrosis (ON) in Denmark and to investigate different common comorbidities association with ON in a population-based setting.MethodsUsing Danish medical databases, we included all patients with a first-time hospital diagnosis of ON during 1995–2012. Each ON case was matched with 10 randomly selected population control subjects from general population. For all participants, we obtained a complete hospital history of comorbidities included in the CharlsonComorbidity Index 5 years preceding the inclusion date.Results4107 ON cases and 41 063 controls were included. The incidence of ON increased from 3.9 in 1995 to 5.5 in 2012 per 100 000 inhabitants. Solid cancer was the most common comorbidity, associated with an adjusted OR (aOR) for ON of 2.0 (95% CI 1.7 to 2.2). For advanced metastatic cancer, leukaemia and lymphoma, aORs of ON were 3.4 (95% CI 2.5 to 4.5), 4.3 (95% CI 2.7 to 7.0) and 5.8 (95% CI 4.3 to 7.8), respectively. Among other chronic conditions, aORs were 3.5 (95% CI 3.0 to 4.1) for connective tissue diseases and 2.3 (95% CI 2.0 to 2.7) for chronic pulmonary diseases. aORs were also increased at 2.8 (95% CI 1.9 to 4.1) and 4.5 (95% CI 2.5 to 8.2) for mild and moderate-to-severe liver disease, respectively, and 4.2 (95% CI 3.4 to 5.2) for renal disease.ConclusionThis large population-based study provides evidence for an increasing ON incidence in the general population and documents an association between several common comorbid conditions and risk of ON.

IntroductionInformal caregivers provide the majority of care to individuals with chronic health conditions, benefiting the care recipient and reducing use of formal care services. However, providing informal care negatively impacts the mental health of many caregivers. E-mental health interventions have emerged as a way to provide accessible mental healthcare to caregivers. Much attention has been given to reviewing the effectiveness and efficacy of such interventions, however, factors related to implementation have received less consideration. Therefore, this mixed-methods systematic review will aim to examine factors associated with the effectiveness and implementation of e-mental health interventions for caregivers.Methods and analysisEligible studies published since 1 January 2007 will be searched for in several electronic databases (CINAHL Plus with Full Text, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science), clinical trial registries and OpenGrey, with all screening steps conducted by two independent reviewers. Studies will be included if they focus on the implementation or effectiveness of e-mental health interventions designed for informal adult caregivers of adults with cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, dementia or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pragmatic randomised controlled trials quantitatively reporting on caregiver anxiety, depression, psychological distress or stress will be used for a qualitative comparative analysis to identify combinations of conditions that result in effective interventions. Qualitative and quantitative data on implementation of e-mental health interventions for caregivers will be integrated in a thematic synthesis to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation. These results will inform future development and implementation planning of e-mental health interventions for caregivers.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study as no primary data will be collected. Results will be disseminated in the form of a scientific publication and presentations at academic conferences and plain language summaries for various stakeholders.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020155727.