The health status and health service needs of primary caregivers of cancer survivors: a mixed methods approach

This study aimed to measure the health status and care needs of people who provide informal care to cancer survivors in the UK. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 24 cancer professionals to identify the care needs of caregivers. In addition, we conducted a postal survey measuring the health and wellbeing (SF-36) and health service utilisation of 98 primary caregivers of a random sample of cancer survivors, 2-20 years post-treatment. Interviews indicated that caregivers’ needs were largely unmet. In particular, there appeared to be a need in relation to statutory health care provision, information, psychological support and involvement in decision making. There were no significant differences between survivors and caregivers in terms of mental health scores; and caregivers performed better on physical health domains compared to cancer survivors. Compared to UK norms and norms for caregivers of other chronic conditions, cancer caregivers had substantially lower scores on each SF-36 health domain. Cancer may impact negatively on an informal caregiver’s health long after treatment has ended. Providing appropriate and cancer specific information may alleviate difficulties and improve health and wellbeing. Specific concentration should be given to the development and delivery of information support for caregivers of post-treatment cancer survivors.

How well do the public understand palliative care? A mixed methods study

Background: International research suggests that the general public appear to be confused about what palliative care is and who provides it.1 2 An understanding of public views is needed in order to target education and policy campaigns and to manage future needs, expectations and resourcing of care.

Aim: The aim of this study was to establish the current levels of awareness and perceptions of palliative care among the general public in Northern Ireland.

Methods: A mixed methods study comprising two phases was undertaken. A community-based cross-sectional survey with a population of 3,557 individuals aged over 17 years was performed. Information was collected using a structured questionnaire consisting of 17 items. Open questions were subject to content analysis; closed questions were subject to descriptive statistics with inferential testing as appropriate. This was followed by semi structured telephone interviews (n=50).

Results: Responses indicated limited knowledge about palliative care. Respondents who worked in healthcare themselves or who had a close relative or friend who had used a palliative care service were more aware of palliative care and the availability of different palliative care services. The main barriers to raising awareness were fear, lack of interaction with health services and perception of lack of resources. A key aspect identified for promoting palliative care was the development of understanding and use of the term itself and targeted educational strategies.

Conclusions: Public awareness of the concept of palliative care and of service availability remains insufficient. An increased awareness of palliative care is needed, in order to improve knowledge of and access to services when required, empower individuals, involve communities and ultimately to improve the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care.

Developing the clinical components of a complex intervention for a glaucoma screening trial:a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of avoidable blindness worldwide. Open angle glaucoma is the most common type of glaucoma. No randomised controlled trials have been conducted evaluating the effectiveness of glaucoma screening for reducing sight loss. It is unclear what the most appropriate intervention to be evaluated in any glaucoma screening trial would be. The purpose of this study was to develop the clinical components of an intervention for evaluation in a glaucoma (open angle) screening trial that would be feasible and acceptable in a UK eye-care service.

METHODS: A mixed-methods study, based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions, integrating qualitative (semi-structured interviews with 46 UK eye-care providers, policy makers and health service commissioners), and quantitative (economic modelling) methods. Interview data were synthesised and used to revise the screening interventions compared within an existing economic model.

RESULTS: The qualitative data indicated broad based support for a glaucoma screening trial to take place in primary care, using ophthalmic trained technical assistants supported by optometry input. The precise location should be tailored to local circumstances. There was variability in opinion around the choice of screening test and target population. Integrating the interview findings with cost-effectiveness criteria reduced 189 potential components to a two test intervention including either optic nerve photography or screening mode perimetry (a measure of visual field sensitivity) with or without tonometry (a measure of intraocular pressure). It would be more cost-effective, and thus acceptable in a policy context, to target screening for open angle glaucoma to those at highest risk but for both practicality and equity arguments the optimal strategy was screening a general population cohort beginning at age forty.

CONCLUSIONS: Interventions for screening for open angle glaucoma that would be feasible from a service delivery perspective were identified. Integration within an economic modelling framework explicitly highlighted the trade-off between cost-effectiveness, feasibility and equity. This study exemplifies the MRC recommendation to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in developing complex interventions. The next step in the development pathway should encompass the views of service users.