METHODS: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted to explore advanced cancer patients' lived experiences and needs from the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects. The interviews were then transcribed and coded. Themes were developed from the codes using iterative thematic approach.
RESULTS: The lived experiences and needs of nineteen patients converged into four major themes: disruption to daily lives, psychosocial and spiritual support system, information needs, and financial needs. This study described predominantly how cancer impacted patients' lives and livelihood, how patients coped with their psychological conditions after diagnosis, the need for effective communication and trust in a multicultural society, and how finance affected access to and experience of cancer care.
CONCLUSION: Advanced cancer patients had different needs beyond receiving medical treatments. A concerted effort is required from clinicians, allied health professionals, social workers, support groups, and family members to understand and fulfil these needs.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes.
METHODS: Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods.
RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.
METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was developed to include 7 attributes valued in cancer management: physical, psychological and social functioning, pain control, survival, place of death, and cost. Patients were recruited via convenience sampling from 2 Malaysian public hospitals. The survey questionnaire was administered to patients within 6 months of their cancer diagnosis with a follow-up 3 months later. Conditional logit regression was used to estimate the preference weight, relative attribute importance, and willingness to pay.
RESULTS: One hundred valid responses were collected at baseline and 45 at follow-up. Respondents placed higher values on QoL improvements from severe to moderate or mild levels and to achieve home death over survival extension from 6 to 18 months. However, additional improvements (from moderate to mild) in some of the QoL outcomes were not valued as highly as life extension from 12 to 18 months, showing that it was vital for patients to avoid being in "severe" health dysfunction. Improving physical dysfunction from severe to mild yielded 3 times as much value as additional 1-year survival. After 3 months, the respondents' preferences changed significantly, with increased relative attribute importance of physical functioning, pain control, and cost.
CONCLUSIONS: As QoL outcomes are valued more than survival, palliative care should be introduced as early as possible to alleviate suffering related to advanced cancer.
AIM: To evaluate the preparedness and capacity of hospice and palliative care services in the Asia-Pacific region to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHOD: An online cross-sectional survey was developed based on methodology guidance. Asia-Pacific Hospice and Palliative Care Network subscribers (n = 1551) and organizational members (n = 185) were emailed. Descriptive analysis was undertaken.
RESULTS: Ninety-seven respondents completed the survey. Around half of services were hospital-based (n = 47, 48%), and public-funded (n = 46, 47%). Half of services reported to have confirmed cases (n = 47, 49%) and the majority of the confirmed cases were patients (n = 28, 61%). Staff perceived moderate risk of being infected by COVID-19 (median: 7/10). > 85% of respondents reported they had up-to-date contact list for staff and patients, one-third revealed challenges to keep record of relatives who visited the services (n = 30, 31%), and of patients visited in communities (n = 29, 30%). Majority of services (60%) obtained adequate resources for infection control except face mask. More than half had no guidance on Do Not Resuscitate orders (n = 59, 66%) or on bereavement care for family members (n = 44, 51%).
CONCLUSION: Recommendations to strengthen the preparedness of palliative care services include: 1) improving the access to face mask; 2) acquiring stress management protocols for staff when unavailable; 3) reinforcing the contact tracing system for relatives and visits in the community and 4) developing guidance on patient and family care during patient's dying trajectory.