Search

Background: Evidence on the efficacy of palliative care in persons with severe multiple sclerosis (MS) is scarce., Objective: To assess the efficacy of a home-based palliative approach (HPA) for adults with severe MS and their carers., Methods: Adults with severe MS-carer dyads were assigned (2:1 ratio) to either HPA or usual care (UC). At each center, a multi-professional team delivered the 6-month intervention. A blind examiner assessed dyads at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Primary outcome measures were Palliative care Outcome Scale-Symptoms-MS (POS-S-MS) and Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW, not assessed in severely cognitively compromised patients)., Results: Of 78 dyads randomized, 76 (50 HPA, 26 UC) were analyzed. Symptom burden (POS-S-MS) significantly reduced in HPA group compared to UC ( p = 0.047). Effect size was 0.20 at 3 months and 0.32 at 6 months, and statistical significance was borderline in per-protocol analysis ( p = 0.062). Changes in SEIQoL-DW index did not differ in the two groups, as changes in secondary patient and carer outcomes., Conclusion: HPA slightly reduced symptoms burden. We found no evidence of HPA efficacy on patient quality of life and on secondary outcomes.

Background: Preliminary evidence suggests that palliative care may be useful for people with severe multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a home-based palliative approach (HPA) for people with severe MS and their carers., Methods/design: This is a single-blind randomized controlled trial with a nested qualitative study. Seventy-five severe MS-carer dyads are being randomized (at three centers, one in each area of Italy) to HPA or usual care (UC) in a 2:1 ratio. Each center has a specially trained team consisting of four professionals (physician, nurse, psychologist, social worker). The team makes a comprehensive assessment of the needs of the dyads. HPA content is then agreed on, discussed with the patient's caring physician, and delivered over six months. The intervention is not intended to replace existing services. At later visits, the team checks the HPA delivery and reviews/modifies it as necessary. HPA and UC dyads are assessed at home by a blind examiner at baseline, and three and six months later; they also receive monthly telephone interviews. Dyads assigned to UC receive the examiner's visits and telephone interviews, but not the team visits. Primary outcome measures are changes in symptoms (Palliative care Outcome Scale-Symptoms-MS, POS-S-MS), and quality of life (the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), not assessed in patients with severe cognitive compromise) at three and six months. Other outcomes are changes in patient functional status and mood; changes in carer quality of life, mood and caregiving burden; costs; incorporation with standard care; unplanned hospital admissions; referrals to hospice; and deaths. The experience of participants will be evaluated qualitatively by individual semi-structured interviews (HPA patients and carers) and focus group meetings (HPA patients' caring physicians)., Discussion: The results of our study will show whether the HPA is feasible and beneficial to people with severe MS and their carers living in the three Italian geographic areas. The nested qualitative study will add to the understanding of the strengths and limitations of the intervention., Trial Registration: The trial was registered with Current Controlled Trials (identifier: ISRCTN73082124) on 19 June 2014.

Background: Few data on services for people with severe multiple sclerosis (MS) are available. The Palliative Network for Severely Affected Adults with MS in Italy (PeNSAMI) developed a home palliative care program for MS patients and carers, preceded by a literature review and qualitative study (here reported)., Objective: To identify unmet needs of people with severe MS living at home by qualitative research involving key stakeholders, and theorize broad areas of intervention to meet those needs., Method: Data were collected from: at least 10 personal interviews with adults with severe MS (primary/secondary progressive, EDSS≥8.0); three focus group meetings (FGs) of carers of people with severe MS; and two FGs of health professionals (HPs). Grounded theory guided the analysis of interview and FG transcripts, from which the areas of intervention were theorized., Results: Between October 2012 and May 2013, 22 MS patients, 30 carers and 18 HPs participated. Forty-eight needs themes were identified, grouped into 14 categories and four domains. Seven, highly interdependent intervention areas were theorized. Patients had difficulties expressing needs; experiences of burden and loneliness were prominent, chiefly in dysfunctional, less affluent families, and among parent carers. Needs differed across Italy with requirements for information and access to services highest in the South. All participants voiced a strong need for qualified personnel and care coordination in day-to-day home care. Personal hygiene emerged as crucial, as did the need for a supportive network and preservation of patient/carer roles within family and community., Conclusions: Unmet needs transcended medical issues and embraced organizational and psychosocial themes, as well as health policies. The high interdependence of the seven intervention areas theorized is in line with the multifaceted approach of palliative care. At variance with typical palliative contexts, coping with disability rather than end-of-life was a major concern of patients and carers.

Background: Evidence on the efficacy of palliative care in persons with severe multiple sclerosis (MS) is scarce. Objective: To assess the efficacy of a home-based palliative approach (HPA) for adults with severe MS and their carers. Methods: Adults with severe MS-carer dyads were assigned (2:1 ratio) to either HPA or usual care (UC). At each center, a multi-professional team delivered the 6-month intervention. A blind examiner assessed dyads at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Primary outcome measures were Palliative care Outcome Scale-Symptoms-MS (POS-S-MS) and Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW, not assessed in severely cognitively compromised patients). Results: Of 78 dyads randomized, 76 (50 HPA, 26 UC) were analyzed. Symptom burden (POS-S-MS) significantly reduced in HPA group compared to UC (p = 0.047). Effect size was 0.20 at 3 months and 0.32 at 6 months, and statistical significance was borderline in per-protocol analysis (p = 0.062). Changes in SEIQoL-DW index did not differ in the two groups, as changes in secondary patient and carer outcomes. Conclusion: HPA slightly reduced symptoms burden. We found no evidence of HPA efficacy on patient quality of life and on secondary outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]