Johnson, Miriam J., Rutterford, Leah, Sunny, Anisha, Pask, Sophie, de Wolf-Linder, Susanne, Murtagh, Fliss E. M., and Ramsenthaler, Christina
Background: Specialist palliative care (SPC) services address the needs of people with advanced illness. Meta-analyses to date have been challenged by heterogeneity in SPC service models and outcome measures and have failed to produce an overall effect. The best service models are unknown. We aimed to estimate the summary effect of SPC across settings on quality of life and emotional wellbeing and identify the optimum service delivery model. Methods and findings: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. Databases (Cochrane, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov) were searched (January 1, 2000; December 28, 2023), supplemented with further hand searches (i.e., conference abstracts). Two researchers independently screened identified studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing SPC intervention versus usual care in adults with life-limiting disease and including patient or proxy reported outcomes as primary or secondary endpoints. The meta-analysis used, to our knowledge, novel methodology to convert outcomes into minimally clinically important difference (MID) units and the number needed to treat (NNT). Bias/quality was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to synthesize endpoints between 2 weeks and 12 months for effect on quality of life and emotional wellbeing expressed and combined in units of MID. From 42,787 records, 39 international RCTs (n = 38 from high- and middle-income countries) were included. For quality of life (33 trials) and emotional wellbeing (22 trials), statistically and clinically significant benefit was seen from 3 months' follow-up for quality of life, standardized mean difference (SMD in MID units) effect size of 0.40 at 13 to 36 weeks, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.21, 0.59], p < 0.001, I2 = 60%). For quality of life at 13 to 36 weeks, 13% of the SPC intervention group experienced an effect of at least 1 MID unit change (relative risk (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI [1.06, 1.20], p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). For emotional wellbeing, 16% experienced an effect of at least 1 MID unit change at 13 to 36 weeks (95% CI [1.08, 1.24], p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). For quality of life, the NNT improved from 69 to 15; for emotional wellbeing from 46 to 28, from 2 weeks and 3 months, respectively. Higher effect sizes were associated with multidisciplinary and multicomponent interventions, across settings. Sensitivity analyses using robust MID estimates showed substantial (quality of life) and moderate (emotional wellbeing) benefits, and lower number-needed-to-treat, even with shorter follow-up. As the main limitation, MID effect sizes may be biased by relying on derivation in non-palliative care samples. Conclusions: Using, to our knowledge, novel methods to combine different outcomes, we found clear evidence of moderate overall effect size for both quality of life and emotional wellbeing benefits from SPC, regardless of underlying condition, with multidisciplinary, multicomponent, and multi-setting models being most effective. Our data seriously challenge the current practice of referral to SPC close to death. Policy and service commissioning should drive needs-based referral at least 3 to 6 months before death as the optimal standard of care. Christina Ramsenthaler and colleagues systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of specialist palliative care, to assess which intervention model components and configurations are most effective in improving quality of life or emotional wellbeing. Author summary: Why was this research done?: Specialist palliative care (SPC) services provide a complex intervention that addresses the holistic needs of individuals with life-limiting conditions and their families. Different intervention models include a variation of different disciplines (doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists, spiritual care workers, social care workers, etc.), configurations (e.g., whether out-of-hours care is provided), and settings (hospital, hospice, community, inpatient, outpatient, etc.). The overall effectiveness of SPC on quality of life and emotional wellbeing is undetermined due to large variation in intervention models and heterogeneity in outcome measures used to measure quality of life and emotional wellbeing. What did the researchers do and find?: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of SPC, to assess which intervention model components and configurations are most effective in improving quality of life or emotional wellbeing. We used a method to combine effects across the range of outcome measures by converting raw scores into units of meaningful improvement. For the summary effects of 39 RCTs, quality of life and emotional outcomes improved from 3 months of follow-up onwards. SPC yielded a clinically meaningful effect on quality of life of moderate size. The effect was larger at 3 to 6 months than at later follow-up. For emotional wellbeing, similar effects were seen. Overall, the effect was larger for quality of life than for emotional wellbeing. To address the large variation in intervention models, we directly scored the number of professional groups and service elements to understand how this variation relates to outcomes. Higher effect sizes were associated with multidisciplinary and multicomponent SPC interventions, provided across healthcare settings. What do these findings mean?: Our findings challenge the current practice of referring patients with life-limiting illness to SPC close to death at the end of life. Policy and service commissioning should drive needs-based referral at least 3 to 6 months before death as the optimal standard of care. The most effective models are multidisciplinary, multicomponent (i.e., providing more than symptom control or advance care planning) and multi-setting. Honoring the complex and holistic needs of patients and families by including different service elements offered by various professional groups working across settings is paramount for effective palliative care. Meaningful changes were not necessarily derived in specified palliative populations. Some of the effects may therefore be under- or overestimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]