RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition in advanced cancer patients is common but limited and inconclusive data exists on the effectiveness of nutrition interventions. Feasibility and acceptability of a novel family-based nutritional psychosocial intervention were established recently. The aims of this present study were to assess the feasibility of undertaking a randomised controlled trial of the latter intervention, to pilot test outcome measures and to explore preliminary outcomes. METHODS: Pilot randomised controlled trial recruiting advanced cancer patients and family caregivers in Australia and Hong Kong. Participants were randomised and assigned to one of two groups, either a family-centered nutritional intervention or the control group receiving usual care only. The intervention provided 2-3 h of direct dietitian contact time with patients and family members over a 4-6-week period. During the intervention, issues with nutrition impact symptoms and food or eating-related psychosocial concerns were addressed through nutrition counselling, with a focus on improving nutrition-related communication between the dyads and setting nutritional goals. Feasibility assessment included recruitment, consent rate, retention rate, and acceptability of assessment tools. Validated nutritional and quality of life self-reported measures were used to collect patient and caregiver outcome data, including the 3-day food diary, the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form, the Functional Assessment Anorexia/Cachexia scale, Eating-related Distress or Enjoyment, and measures of self-efficacy, carers' distress, anxiety and depression. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients and 54 family caregivers participated in the study. Recruitment was challenging, and for every patient agreeing to participate, 14-31 patients had to be screened. The consent rate was 44% in patients and 55% in caregivers. Only half the participants completed the trial's final assessment. The data showed promise for some patient outcomes in the intervention group, particularly with improvements in eating-related distress (p = 0.046 in the Australian data; p = 0.07 in the Hong Kong data), eating-related enjoyment (p = 0.024, Hong Kong data) and quality of life (p = 0.045, Australian data). Energy and protein intake also increased in a clinically meaningful way. Caregiver data on eating-related distress, anxiety, depression and caregiving burden, however, showed little or no change. CONCLUSIONS: Despite challenges with participant recruitment, the intervention demonstrates good potential to have positive effects on patients' nutritional status and eating-related distress. The results of this trial warrant a larger and fully-powered trial to ascertain the effectiveness of this intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Australian & New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, registration number ACTRN12618001352291 .
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias , Estado Nutricional , Australia , Cuidadores , Humanos , Neoplasias/terapia , Proyectos Piloto , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: People with cancer are at high risk of malnutrition. Nutrition education is an effective strategy to improve patient outcomes, however, little is known regarding the impact of family and/or carer involvement in nutrition education and requires investigation. The purpose of the study was to evaluate PIcNIC (Partnering with families to promote nutrition in cancer care) intervention acceptability from the perspective of patients, families and health care providers. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study was undertaken at an inpatient and an outpatient hospital setting in Australia and an outpatient/home setting in Hong Kong. A patient-and-family centred intervention including nutrition education, goals setting/nutrition plans, and food diaries, was delivered to patients and/or families in the inpatient, outpatient or home setting. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore perceptions of the intervention. 64 participants were interviewed; 20 patients, 15 family members, and 29 health care professionals. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Two categories were identified; 1) 'context and intervention acceptability'; and 2) 'benefits of patient- and family-centred nutrition care'. Within each category redundant concepts were identified. For category 1 the redundant concepts were: the intervention works in outpatient settings, the food diary is easy but needs to be tailored, the information booklet is a good resource, and the intervention should be delivered by a dietitian, but could be delivered by a nurse. The redundant concepts for category 2 were: a personalised nutrition plan is required, patient and family involvement in the intervention is valued and the intervention has benefits for patients and families. Converging and diverging perceptions across participant groups and settings were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we have described an acceptable patient- and family-centred nutrition intervention, which may be effective in increasing patient and family engagement in nutrition care and may result in improved nutrition intakes. Our study highlights important contextual considerations for nutrition education; the outpatient and home setting are optimal for engaging patients and families in learning opportunities.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is frequent in patients with cancer, particularly those in advanced stages of the disease. The aim of the present study was to test the feasibility of a family-centred nutritional intervention, based on the Family Systems theory and past research. METHODS: This was a single-arm trial assessing feasibility (eligibility, recruitment and retention rates); acceptability by patients, family caregivers and health professionals; intervention fidelity, and energy/protein intake (in one site only). Two sites were involved; one each in Australia (AUS) and Hong Kong (HK), with one site delivering the intervention to oncology patients receiving curative treatments in the hospital, and the other to advanced cancer patients in the home. RESULTS: The sample included 53 patients (23 from AUS and 30 from HK), 22 caregivers (3 from AUS and 19 from HK) and 30 health professionals (20 from AUS and 10 from HK). Recruitment was difficult in the acute inpatient oncology care setting (AUS) and feasibility criteria were not met. Sufficient recruitment took place in the home care setting with advanced cancer patients in HK. Patients, family members and health professionals found the intervention helpful and acceptable, and patients and families indicated they would take part in the future in a similar study. Energy and protein intake improved from baseline to end of intervention (mean 22 kcal/kg/day to 26 and 0.9 g/kg/day to 1.0 respectively). CONCLUSION: The new intervention is feasible in a home setting when delivered to patients with advanced cancer, acceptable to patients and families, and has the potential to improve nutritional status in patients. A large randomised trial is warranted in the future.