Next Article in Journal
Factors Affecting Nursing Surveillance Activity among Clinical Nurses
Next Article in Special Issue
Foot Health in People with Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy: A Scoping Review
Previous Article in Journal
Consent for Teaching—The Experience of Pediatrics and Psychiatry
Previous Article in Special Issue
Burden of Family Caregivers of Patients with Oral Cancer in Home Care in Taiwan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/healthcare11091272
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cancer Patients’ Satisfaction with In-Home Palliative Care and Its Impact on Disease Symptoms

by
Inmaculada Valero-Cantero
1,
Cristina Casals
2,*,
Milagrosa Espinar-Toledo
3,
Francisco Javier Barón-López
4,
Francisco Javier Martínez-Valero
5 and
María Ángeles Vázquez-Sánchez
6
1
Puerta Blanca Clinical Management Unit, Malaga-Guadalhorce Health District, 29004 Malaga, Spain
2
ExPhy Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica de Cádiz (INiBICA), Universidad de Cádiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain
3
Rincón de la Victoria Clinical Management Unit, Malaga-Guadalhorce Health District, 29730 Malaga, Spain
4
Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Biomedical Research in Málaga (IBIMA), University of Malaga, 29016 Malaga, Spain
5
Midlothian Foot Care, Dalkeith and National Health Service, Dalkeith EH22 1DU, UK
6
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, PASOS Research Group and UMA REDIAS Network of Law and Artificial Intelligence Applied to Health and Biotechnology, University of Malaga, 29071 Malaga, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(9), 1272; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091272
Submission received: 4 April 2023 / Revised: 26 April 2023 / Accepted: 27 April 2023 / Published: 29 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nursing Care for Cancer Patients)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the study was to determine whether the satisfaction of cancer patients with in-home palliative care is associated with the impact of disease symptoms and with self-perceived quality of life. This was a cross-sectional descriptive study, conducted in the primary health care sector in six clinical management units, where 72 patients were recruited over a period of six months. The severity of symptoms was determined by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Quality of life was evaluated with the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3) questionnaire, and patients’ satisfaction with the care received was evaluated by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). The patients’ satisfaction with the health care received was represented by an average score of 6, on a scale of 1–10; thus, there is room for improvement in patient satisfaction. Moreover, it was found that more intense symptoms and lower quality of life are associated with lower satisfaction with health care received (p = 0.001). Similarly, when symptoms are more severe, the quality of life is lower (p < 0.001). The identification of fatigue, reduced well-being, pain, drowsiness, and depression as the symptoms experienced with the highest intensity by our patients provides valuable information for health care providers in developing individualized symptom management plans for patients with advanced cancer.

1. Introduction

Worldwide, cancer is a major cause of mortality, responsible for one in every six deaths, according to the World Health Organization [1]. Patients with advanced cancer need palliative care as early as possible [2,3], since they present changeable, severe symptoms that require continuous, high-quality health care [4]. This highlights the need for increased awareness and resources to be dedicated to palliative care for cancer patients.
Among other symptoms, patients may experience pain, fatigue, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, dyspnoea, sleep disorders, loss of appetite, constipation, and altered quality of life [5,6,7,8], and these symptoms usually worsen as the disease progresses [9]. Palliative care is aimed at relieving these symptoms and improving the patient’s quality of life, as well as providing support for their families and caregivers, by addressing their physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs.
In order to provide effective symptom management and improve the quality of life for patients with advanced cancer, healthcare providers must have reliable and accurate measures of the symptoms they are experiencing. The mentioned symptoms can be measured in various ways, but one of the most widely used instruments, both in clinical practice and in research, is the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) [10,11,12], which evaluates the intensity of ten physical and psychological symptoms. A major advantage of this scale is its ease of use [13]. Given the significant impact that advanced cancer and its related symptoms have on patients’ well-being, it is essential that healthcare providers prioritize the regular assessment of symptoms in their care management plans.
One of the fundamental objectives of health care for these patients is to improve their quality of life, which is inevitably diminished by the oncological process and the symptoms produced [14]. Quality of life is a multidimensional construct that encompasses various aspects of an individual’s life, including physical health, mental health, social functioning, and general well-being [15]. It is a subjective measure that reflects an individual’s perception of their overall life satisfaction. Thus, assessing the patient’s quality of life should be also an integral part of their overall health care management.
Quality health care should alleviate the symptoms (or at least maintain the status quo, or slow the worsening) presented by a cancer patient in palliative care, and hence improve the quality of life. However, to decide whether this care is really effective, the patient’s own assessment of outcomes must be obtained, and this aspect of the question has received relatively little research attention [16]. Patient-reported outcomes have become increasingly important in assessing the effectiveness of health care interventions and should be considered in the evaluation of palliative care for cancer patients.
A further consideration is the fact that the patient’s preferences in health care planning should be taken into account in the clinical setting. In this respect, some recommendations have already been offered [17]. The recommendations involve tailoring advance care planning to the readiness of the individual, adjusting the content of advance care planning as the individual’s health condition worsens, and utilizing trained non-physician facilitators to support the advance care planning process [17]. Patients’ satisfaction with the health care received is of fundamental importance and is closely related to the degree of concordance between the actual treatment and care received and the patient’s preferences in this regard [18], and this consideration is as valid for patients receiving in-home palliative care as for those who are hospitalized [19].
On the other hand, according to prior research in the area of palliative care, advance health care planning between physicians and patients does not increase the latter’s satisfaction with the medical care received [20], nor does it produce differences in treatment, in perceived quality of life, or in physical and mental symptoms [21]. In consequence, joint planning of the health care program between physicians and patients may not be strictly necessary. Nevertheless, an assessment of the patient’s continuing acceptance of the treatment and care received may be useful, and this question can be assessed by means of user satisfaction surveys.
Our study aim is to determine whether satisfaction with the health care received is associated with the severity of symptoms and with self-perceived quality of life for patients with advanced cancer receiving in-home palliative care. The results of this study can be used to inform health care providers on how to improve care for advanced cancer patients receiving in-home palliative care, with the aim of improving patients’ satisfaction, reducing the severity of symptoms, and enhancing their quality of life.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

The study employed a multicenter, cross-sectional descriptive design. It was conducted in the field of primary health care in six clinical management units in the Málaga-Guadalhorce Health District (Málaga, Andalusia, Spain).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria and Sampling

The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) Cancer patients receiving in-home palliative care, (2) who were aged 18 years or older. The exclusion criteria were: (1) Patients with highly advanced disease, resulting in a life expectancy of only a few days, or (2) patients with advanced stage dementia or psychological disorders that would impair their ability to make rational decisions. All individuals included in the study had previously received treatment for cancer through surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy. At the time of the study, none of the patients were receiving systemic treatment, and the treatment provided was focused on symptom improvement.
The study sample was constituted from the cancer patients who according to the corresponding Digital Clinical History (DIRAYA, Spanish initials) were currently receiving palliative care. DIRAYA, defined as an integrated management and information system for health care, is the system used in the Andalusian Health Service as a support for electronic medical records.

2.3. Measures

Several measures were utilized to collect data from participants, which were carefully selected based on their validity and reliability. The measures used in the present study are detailed as presented below.

2.3.1. Sociodemographic Data and Clinical Characteristics

The sociodemographic information included: age, sex, marital status, and education. The clinical characteristics included: type of cancer and duration of palliative care. This information was recorded to describe the study sample and consider the generalizability of the findings.

2.3.2. Severity of Disease Symptoms

Assessment of symptoms was conducted using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scale [10,22]. ESAS has been psychometrically validated and translated into over 20 languages with good internal reliability (Cronbach α 0.79), test-retest reliability (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.86 on Day 2 and 0.45 on Day 7), and convergent validity [10]. Moreover, the ESAS is a valid, reliable, responsive, and feasible instrument with adequate psychometric properties when tested on Spanish advanced cancer patients [23].
This instrument measures the average intensity of ten common symptoms experienced by cancer patients during the previous week. These symptoms include pain, fatigue, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, dyspnea, loss of appetite, reduced well-being, and sleep disorders. Patients rated the severity of each symptom at the time of evaluation on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates the symptom was absent and 10 that it was of the worst possible severity. Based on the ESAS symptoms, following outcomes were obtained:
-
Physical ESAS score: calculated as the sum of pain, fatigue, nausea, drowsiness, appetite, and dyspnea symptoms (ranging from 0 to 60).
-
Emotional ESAS score: calculated as the sum of depression and anxiety symptoms (ranging from 0 to 20).
-
The total ESAS score: calculated as the sum of all ten symptoms (ranging from 0 to 100).

2.3.3. Quality of Life

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) score was developed to assess the quality of life of cancer patients. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire version 3.0 of this instrument includes 30 questions covering five functional domains (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social), eight symptoms (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnoea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, and diarrhea), and the financial impact produced by the disease. The questionnaire is scored on a four-point scale (ranging from 1 = “Not at all” to 4 = “A lot”), and these questions are scored from 0 to 100. In addition, general health and quality of life are rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (=“Very poor”) to 7 (=“Excellent”), with a score range of 0 to 100 representing the patient’s overall health status, where 100 is the best possible condition [24]. High scores on the global health and functional scales indicate better quality of life, whereas on the symptom scale it would indicate decreased quality of life as it indicates the presence of cancer-related symptoms [24].
The validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 have been demonstrated as an effective tool for assessing quality of life in cancer patients. The reliability of the Spanish version of the questionnaire was found to be greater than 0.86, and the total score of the scale was a good indicator of the quality of life of cancer patients [25].

2.3.4. Satisfaction with the Health Care Received

This parameter was addressed using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8), which includes eight Likert-scale questions rated from 1 to 4, resulting in a total score ranging from 8 to 32 points with higher scores indicating more satisfaction with the health care. Additionally, the questionnaire includes three open-ended questions asking patients to identify what they liked most and least about their health care, and what changes they would suggest [26].
The CSQ-8 is a brief, global index rating scale reliable in a variety of service settings to measure satisfaction with the health care received. Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.83 to 0.90, supporting that the Spanish version of the questionnaire was reliable, valid, and linguistically equivalent to the English version [27].

2.4. Ethical Issues and Permissions

The study was granted ethical approval by the Malaga Provincial Ethics Committee, with project code 1752-N-18. All patients were informed about the study aims and methods both verbally and in writing. Signed informed consent to participate was requested and obtained from all participants. This project received funding support from the Regional Ministry for Health and Families in the field of primary care, through the Andalusian Health Service (SAS), under the project code AP-0157-2018. We took measures to protect the privacy and confidentiality of our participants, including the use of anonymized data and secure storage of personal information. We also disclosed any potential conflicts of interest, such as relationships with funding sources or commercial entities involved in the study, to ensure transparency and integrity in our research practices.

2.5. Data Collection

The patients were recruited to the study over a six-month period from January to December 2022. The final study sample was composed of 72 cancer patients receiving in-home palliative care, who met all the criteria for inclusion and who accepted the invitation to take part. A nurse subsequently visited these patients in their homes and asked them to complete the corresponding questionnaires.

2.6. Statistical Methods

The statistical data obtained are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the quantitative variables, and as absolute frequency (n) and percentage (%) for the categorical ones. Bivariate associations between the CSQ-8, EORTC QLQ-C30 and ESAS scores were analyzed using Spearman’s nonparametric correlation test. Moreover, multiple linear regression was applied with the CSQ-8 as the predicted outcome and with EORTC QLQ-C30 and ESAS as independent variables. The SPSS 22 statistical software was used for all these analyses. Statistical significance was considered at a p-value of less than 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Recruitment

Of the 78 patients initially assessed, three were excluded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria, two declined the invitation, and one passed away before the scheduled interview. The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the final sample (n = 72) are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Study Variables

In our sample, the evaluation of the patients’ symptoms is presented in Table 2. The mean of the total ESAS score of cancer patients was 32.25 ± 15.69 points, with a range from 0 to 100 points, where 0 is the best possible condition.
The perceived quality of life, based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 findings, is described in Table 3. The mean of the Global Health Status of cancer patients was 46.30 ± 23.27 points, with a range from 0 to 100 points, where 100 is the best possible condition.
Finally, descriptive results regarding the patients’ satisfaction with health care assessed through the CSQ-8 are shown in Table 4. The mean total satisfaction score was 19.72 ± 3.34 points, with a range from 8 to 32 points, where 32 is the best possible condition.

3.3. Bivariate Associations and Regression Analysis

The bivariate relationships between the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Global Health Status), ESAS scale score, and CSQ-8 are presented in Table 5, and significant associations were found in all cases.
The bivariate associations of the CSQ-8 with the level of ESAS symptoms showed that a higher satisfaction with the health care was significantly associated with lower severity of symptoms experienced by cancer patients (Spearman’s rho = −0.397, p = 0.001).
The bivariate associations of the CSQ-8 with the Global Health Status assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 reported that the patients who presented higher satisfaction with their health care also demonstrated significantly higher levels of perceived Global Health Status (r = 0.486, p < 0.001).
Moreover, a higher quality of life (the EORTC QLQ-C30 total score) was associated with lower severity of symptoms assessed with the ESAS scale (r = −0.511, p < 0.001).
Using the CSQ-8 scale as the dependent variable, multiple linear regression analysis is presented in Table 6. An increment of 1 point on ESAS was related to a 0.5-point decrease of CSQ-8, while an increment of 1 point on EORTC QLQ-C30 was related to a 0.64-point increase in CSQ-8.

4. Discussion

The study sample comprised of an equal proportion of men and women with an average age of 71 years. The most commonly observed types of cancer were colon, breast, and lung cancer, with frequencies of occurrence comparable to those reported in international studies [28]. The fact that the most commonly observed types of cancer in this study were consistent with those reported in international studies suggests that the study findings may be applicable to a broad range of patients with advanced cancer.
The mean duration of palliative treatment in our study can be considered acceptable, but earlier referral would be preferable. However, other studies have reported even shorter durations of palliative care, from referral until death [29]. It is now generally agreed that therapeutic and palliative care for cancer patients should be more closely integrated, as this could enhance the overall care received [2].
The ESAS results revealed that fatigue, reduced well-being, pain, drowsiness, and depression were the symptoms experienced with the highest intensity. These symptoms were previously identified in another study [30], although at a slightly higher severity level. In our sample, these symptoms were classified as having moderate severity (scores ranging from 4 to 6); nevertheless, the individual experience of each patient may vary [31,32]. A major barrier to adequate symptom treatment is poor assessment [33]. Symptom assessment is initiated with the use of standardized scales emphasizing anxiety, depression, physical symptoms, and coping strategies. These scales help to assess the severity of symptoms and guide symptom management. For effective palliative care, it is essential to use a standardized approach to symptom assessment that enables accurate identification of symptoms and their impact on patient’s quality of life [5].
The average score for overall quality of life, as measured by the Global Health Status findings, among these patients with advanced cancer was >47 points, indicating a moderate-to-poor level of quality of life. This value is consistent with that found in comparable studies [34,35]. The finding that patients with advanced cancer in this study reported a moderate-to-poor level of quality of life highlights the importance of providing effective supportive care interventions to address symptoms and improve overall well-being. Given that this result is consistent with findings from comparable studies, it suggests that health care providers should prioritize interventions that have been shown to be effective in improving quality of life in this patient population. Additionally, the use of the Global Health Status measure provides a standardized tool for assessing quality of life in patients with advanced cancer, which can be useful for clinical decision-making and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions over time. Overall, these findings can inform the development and implementation of interventions aimed at improving quality of life for patients with advanced cancer.
On a scale of 8 to 32 points (where 32 represents the best possible condition), the patients’ satisfaction with the healthcare they received was around 20 points. The item on the CSQ-8 survey that received the lowest score was related to “How satisfied are you with the amount of help you received?”, highlighting the need for greater support for in-home palliative care. Out of all the items on the survey, only two (“How would you rate the quality of service you received?” and “In an overall, general sense, how satisfied are you with the service you received?”) received a mean score higher than 3 points on a scale of 1 to 4. These findings suggest that there is room for improvement in patient satisfaction, as well as in the severity of the symptoms they experienced and their overall quality of life. The evaluation of satisfaction with care is a valuable approach for assessing the quality of cancer care. Satisfaction with care represents a significant domain in cancer outcomes research, although its full potential has yet to be explored [36].
Regarding the bivariate associations observed, it was found that more intense symptoms and lower quality of life are associated with lower satisfaction with health care received [36]. Similarly, when symptoms are more severe, the quality of life is lower. Conversely, patients who are most satisfied with the health care received usually experience less severe symptoms and have a better quality of life. The regression analysis showed that an increase of one point on the symptoms scale (assessed with ESAS) was associated with a decrease of half a point on the satisfaction scale (assessed with CSQ-8). Similarly, an increase of one point on the scale of quality of life (assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30) was associated with a slightly greater than half a point increase on the satisfaction scale.
These findings suggest that symptom control and improvement in quality of life are important factors in enhancing patient satisfaction with health care. While the relationship between patients’ satisfaction with health care, quality of life, and symptom intensity may seem obvious, it is important to empirically demonstrate and quantify these associations to emphasize the significance of understanding patients’ experiences in this regard.
A previous study [37] reported that, compared to usual oncology care, a concurrent nurse-led, palliative care-focused intervention addressing physical, psychosocial, and care coordination led to higher scores for quality of life and mood, but not to improvements in symptom intensity scores or reduced hospitalization or emergency department visits. Thus, the early integration of palliative care has been shown to enhance the quality of life and satisfaction with care and is now more widely recommended for patients with advanced cancer [38]. Providing early palliative care enhances satisfaction with care in advanced cancer by effectively addressing patients’ emotional distress and quality of life, improving collaborative relationships with healthcare providers, and addressing concerns about end-of-life preparation [39]. Moreover, a recent study concluded that an early integration of palliative care is recommended for patients with advanced cancer, as it has been shown to both enhance quality of life and alleviate symptom burden [40].
Notwithstanding, a Cochrane review [41] suggested that there is low-quality evidence supporting that compared to usual care, specialist palliative care may provide small benefits for patient outcomes such as health-related quality of life, symptom burden, and patient satisfaction with care. Therefore, more well-conducted studies are needed to draw stronger conclusions and to assess the cost-effectiveness of this palliative care [41]. Terminal cancer patients require extensive and continuous care from health care professionals, but the causes of dissatisfaction and ways to improve it are not clear from the literature review [42], since it requires a comprehensive assessment of patients’ satisfaction with care [43,44].
The present study finds that patients’ dissatisfaction is associated with decreased quality of life and increased multiple symptoms among advanced cancer patients. This highlights the need for improved care for this patient population. Identifying the factors that contribute to the dissatisfaction of patients with terminal cancer can lead to the development of interventions and strategies that improve their quality of life and overall satisfaction with care. For instance, health care providers could focus on managing symptoms more effectively, improving communication and information-sharing with patients, and involving patients and their families in shared decision-making. Such improvements could ultimately lead to better patient outcomes and experiences.

5. Limitations

The present study is subject to the following limitations, and the results should be interpreted accordingly. Firstly, it is cross-sectional, and so the direction and causality of the effects recorded cannot be inferred. Additionally, information on the duration of time since the suspension of systemic treatment was not collected, which may have influenced the observed outcomes. Moreover, variables other than those studied may also influence patients’ satisfaction with their health care. Hence, randomized controlled trials are encouraged to analyze the effect of interventions aimed at improving satisfaction with care and their relationship with quality of life and symptom severity in palliative care patients with cancer.
Furthermore, the sample size was limited, due to the relatively small number of cancer patients in our population receiving in-home palliative care. Although the present study is multicenter, involving six health centers in Andalusia, Spain, it may not be fully representative of the entire population of cancer patients receiving palliative care in other regions or countries. Therefore, the generalizability of the study findings may be limited. Additionally, cultural and socioeconomic differences between regions or countries may also influence patients’ experiences and satisfaction with health care, which should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of this study. Moreover, the study may be affected by selection bias, as patients who agreed to participate in the study may differ from those who declined or were unable to participate. Finally, self-reported symptoms may be subject to recall bias or individual interpretation.

6. Conclusions

The study shows that dissatisfaction among advanced cancer patients is linked to lower quality of life and increased symptoms, emphasizing the need for better care. Indeed, patients’ satisfaction with the healthcare they received was around 20 points out of 32, indicating room for improvement in patient satisfaction and the severity of symptoms. The evaluation of satisfaction with care is important in assessing the quality of cancer care, and there is a need to explore its full potential for in-home palliative care.
The study found that fatigue, reduced well-being, pain, drowsiness, and depression were the most intense symptoms experienced by patients with moderate severity. Standardized scales are important in assessing the severity of symptoms and guiding symptom management and care. The use of the ESAS tool provides a standardized way to assess symptom intensity, which can aid in identifying patients who may require additional interventions and monitoring the effectiveness of interventions over time.
Moreover, the study’s finding that patients with advanced cancer had a moderate-to-poor quality of life underscores the need for effective supportive care interventions. Given the consistency with similar studies, healthcare providers should prioritize proven interventions. The use of the standardized Global Health Status measure is useful for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and guiding clinical decisions. These findings can inform the development of interventions aimed at improving quality of life for patients with advanced cancer.
When in-home palliative care is provided to patients with advanced cancer, it is important to determine their satisfaction with this process, together with their assessment of the symptoms presented. Both factors are relevant to the quality of health care and, ultimately, to the self-perceived quality of life. Identifying factors that contribute to dissatisfaction can lead to interventions that improve patient satisfaction, such as improving symptom management, communication with patients, and involving them in decision-making. Such improvements could lead to better patient outcomes and experiences.
In conclusion, these findings can be applied in practice by encouraging health care providers to routinely assess and address patient satisfaction during in-home palliative care. This may help to alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life for patients, while also providing them with emotional and social support during a difficult time. In addition, early referral to palliative care services can help to ensure that patients receive appropriate end-of-life care, such as advance care planning and symptom management, in a timely and compassionate manner. While the mean duration of palliative treatment in our study was considered acceptable, efforts to promote earlier referral to palliative care services may further improve the quality of care received by patients with advanced cancer.
Further research is necessary to identify effective interventions and establish a causal relationship between satisfaction with care and improved patient outcomes in the context of palliative care for cancer patients. These studies will help inform the development of evidence-based practices and policies for providing optimal palliative care to cancer patients in need.

Author Contributions

M.Á.V.-S. and C.C. contributed to the fundraising, conceptualization, methodological design, software application, formal analysis, background research, data curation, drafting, reviewing and editing of this study. I.V.-C. contributed to the fundraising, project management, conceptualization, methodological design, background research, review and editing. M.E.-T., F.J.B.-L. and F.J.M.-V. contributed to the conceptualization, methodological design, background research, review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

External funding for this study, involving research, development, and innovation (R + D + I) in biomedical and health sciences in Andalusia (Spain), was obtained from the Regional Health Ministry of “Junta de Andalucia”, under Project AP-0157-2018, dated 13 November 2018.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Province of Malaga, on 28 March 2019 (File number: AP-0157-2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Study data are available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wild, C.P.; Weiderpass, E.; Stewart, B.W. World Cancer Report: Cancer Research for Cancer Prevention; World Cancer Reports; International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kaasa, S.; Loge, J.H.; Aapro, M.; Albreht, T.; Anderson, R.; Bruera, E.; Brunelli, C.; Caraceni, A.; Cervantes, A.; Currow, D.C.; et al. Integration of oncology and palliative care: A Lancet Oncology Commission. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, e588–e653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lee, G.; Kim, H.S.; Lee, S.W.; Park, Y.R.; Kim, E.H.; Lee, B.; Hu, Y.J.; Kim, K.A.; Kim, D.; Cho, H.Y.; et al. Pre-screening o f patient-reported symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in outpatient palliative cancer care. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2020, 29, e13305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Yates, P. Symptom Management and Palliative Care for Patients with Cancer. Nurs. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 52, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hussaini, Q.; Smith, T.J. Incorporating palliative care into oncology practice: Why and how. Clin. Adv. Hematol. Oncol. 2021, 19, 390–395. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Nipp, R.D.; El-Jawahri, A.; Moran, S.M.; D’Arpino, S.M.; Johnson, P.C.; Lage, D.E.; Wong, R.L.; Pirl, W.F.; Traeger, L.; Lennes, I.T.; et al. The relationship between physical and psychological symptoms and health care utilization in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 2017, 123, 4720–4727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Miceli, J.; Geller, D.; Tsung, A.; Hecht, C.L.; Wang, Y.; Pathak, R.; Cheng, H.; Marsh, W.; Antoni, M.; Penedo, F.; et al. Illness perceptions and perceived stress in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Psychooncology 2019, 28, 1513–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Komarzynski, S.; Huang, Q.; Lévi, F.A.; Palesh, O.G.; Ulusakarya, A.; Bouchahda, M.; Haydar, M.; Wreglesworth, N.I.; Morère, J.-F.; Adam, R.; et al. The day after: Correlates of patient-reported outcomes with actigraphy-assessed sleep in cancer patients at home (inCASA project). Sleep 2019, 42, zsz146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Seow, H.; Stevens, T.; Barbera, L.C.; Burge, F.; McGrail, K.; Chan, K.K.W.; Peacock, S.J.; Sutradhar, R.; Guthrie, D.M. Trajectory of psychosocial symptoms among home care patients with cancer at end-of-life. Psychooncology 2021, 30, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hui, D.; Bruera, E. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System 25 Years Later: Past, Present, and Future Developments. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2017, 53, 630–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chasen, M.; Bhargava, R.; Dalzell, C.; Pereira, J.L. Attitudes of oncologists towards palliative care and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at an Ontario cancer center in Canada. Support. Care Cancer 2015, 23, 769–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Green, E.; Yuen, D.; Chasen, M.; Amernic, H.; Shabestari, O.; Brundage, M.; Krzyzanowska, M.; Klinger, C.; Ismail, Z.; Pereira, J. Oncology Nurses’ Attitudes Toward the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: Results from a Large Cancer Care Ontario Study. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2017, 44, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wong, A.; Tayjasanant, S.; Rodriguez-Nunez, A.; Park, M.; Liu, D.; Zapata, K.P.; Allo, J.; Frisbee-Hume, S.; Williams, J.; Bruera, E. Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale Time Duration of Self-Completion Versus Assisted Completion in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Comparison. Oncologist 2021, 26, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Borchert, K.; Jacob, C.; Wetzel, N.; Jänicke, M.; Eggers, E.; Sauer, A.; Marschner, N.; Altevers, J.; Mittendorf, T.; Greiner, W. Application study of the EQ-5D-5L in oncology: Linking self-reported quality of life of patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer to clinical data from a German tumor registry. Health Econ. Rev. 2020, 10, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kelly, M.; Rivas, C.; Foell, J.; Llewellyn-Dunn, J.; England, D.; Cocciadiferro, A.; Hull, S. Unmasking quality: Exploring meanings of health by doing art. BMC Fam. Pract. 2015, 16, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Diplock, B.D.; McGarragle, K.M.C.; Mueller, W.A.; Haddad, S.; Ehrlich, R.; Yoon, D.-H.A.; Cao, X.; Al-Allaq, Y.; Karanicolas, P.; Fitch, M.I.; et al. The impact of automated screening with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) on health-related quality of life, supportive care needs, and patient satisfaction with care in 268 ambulatory cancer patients. Support. Care Cancer 2019, 27, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rietjens, J.A.C.; Sudore, R.L.; Connolly, M.; van Delden, J.J.; Drickamer, M.A.; Droger, M.; van der Heide, A.; Heyland, D.K.; Houttekier, D.; Janssen, D.J.A.; et al. Definition and recommendations for advance care planning: An international consensus supported by the European Association for Palliative Care. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, e543–e551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jabbarian, L.J.; Zwakman, M.; Van Der Heide, A.; Kars, M.C.; Janssen, D.J.A.; Van Delden, J.J.; Rietjens, J.A.C.; Korfage, I.J. Advance care planning for patients with chronic respiratory diseases: A systematic review of preferences and practices. Thorax 2018, 73, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zwakman, M.; Jabbarian, L.; van Delden, J.; van der Heide, A.; Korfage, I.; Pollock, K.; Rietjens, J.; Seymour, J.; Kars, M. Advance care planning: A systematic review about experiences of patients with a life-threatening or life-limiting illness. Palliat. Med. 2018, 32, 1305–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lin, C.-P.; Evans, C.J.; Koffman, J.; Armes, J.; Murtagh, F.E.M.; Harding, R. The conceptual models and mechanisms of action that underpin advance care planning for cancer patients: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Palliat. Med. 2019, 33, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Korfage, I.J.; Carreras, G.; Christensen, C.M.A.; Billekens, P.; Bramley, L.; Briggs, L.; Bulli, F.; Caswell, G.; Červ, B.; Van Delden, J.J.M.; et al. Advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer: A 6-country, cluster-randomised clinical trial. PLoS Med. 2020, 17, e1003422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bruera, E.; Kuehn, N.; Miller, M.J.; Selmser, P.; Macmillan, K. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): A Simple Method for the Assessment of Palliative Care Patients. J. Palliat. Care 1991, 7, 6–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Carvajal, A.; Centeno, C.; Watson, R.; Bruera, E. A comprehensive study of psychometric properties of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) in Spanish advanced cancer patients. Eur. J. Cancer 2011, 47, 1863–1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aaronson, N.K.; Ahmedzai, S.; Bergman, B.; Bullinger, M.; Cull, A.; Duez, N.J.; Filiberti, A.; Flechtner, H.; Fleishman, S.B.; De Haes, J.C.J.M.; et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-of-Life Instrument for Use in International Clinical Trials in Oncology. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993, 85, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Calderon, C.; Ferrando, P.J.; Lorenzo-Seva, U.; Ferreira, E.; Lee, E.M.; Oporto-Alonso, M.; Obispo-Portero, B.M.; Mihic-Góngora, L.; Rodríguez-González, A.; Jiménez-Fonseca, P. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the European Organ-ization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Qual. Life Res. 2022, 31, 1859–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Roberts, R.E.; Attkisson, C. Assessing client satisfaction among hispanics. Eval. Program Plan. 1983, 6, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Roberts, R.E.; Atrkisson, C.C.; Mendias, R.M. Assessing the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire in English and Spanish. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 1984, 6, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. International Agency for Research on Cancer 2020. Data Source: Globocan 2018. Graph Production: Global Cancer Observa-Tory. Available online: http://gco.iarc.fr/ (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  29. Bercow, A.S.; Nitecki, R.; Haber, H.; Gockley, A.A.; Hinchcliff, E.; James, K.; Melamed, A.; Diver, E.; Kamdar, M.M.; Feldman, S.; et al. Palliative care referral patterns and measures of aggressive care at the end of life in patients with cervical cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2021, 31, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Corli, O.; Pellegrini, G.; Bosetti, C.; Riva, L.; Crippa, M.; Amodio, E.; Scaccabarozzi, G. Impact of Palliative Care in Evaluating and Relieving Symptoms in Patients with Advanced Cancer. Results from the DEMETRA Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Seow, H.; Sussman, J.; Martelli-Reid, L.; Pond, G.; Bainbridge, D. Do High Symptom Scores Trigger Clinical Actions? An Audit After Implementing Electronic Symptom Screening. J. Oncol. Pract. 2012, 8, e142–e148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hui, D.; Park, M.; Shamieh, O.; Paiva, C.E.; Perez-Cruz, P.E.; Muckaden, M.A.; Bruera, E. Personalized symptom goals and response in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 2016, 122, 1774–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cleeland, C.S. Cancer-related symptoms. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2000, 10, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bjerring, O.S.; Larsen, M.K.; Fristrup, C.W.; Lundell, L.; Mortensen, M.B. The role of home visits by a nurse to improve palliation in patients treated with self-expandable metallic stents due to incurable esophageal cancer. Dis. Esophagus 2020, 33, doz076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Poort, H.; Peters, M.; van der Graaf, W.; Nieuwkerk, P.; van de Wouw, A.; der Sanden, M.N.-V.; Bleijenberg, G.; Verhagen, C.; Knoop, H. Cognitive behavioral therapy or graded exercise therapy compared with usual care for severe fatigue in patients with advanced cancer during treatment: A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Jayadevappa, R.; Schwartz, J.S.; Chhatre, S.; Wein, A.J.; Malkowicz, S.B. Satisfaction with Care: A Measure of Quality of Care in Prostate Cancer Patients. Med. Decis. Mak. 2010, 30, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bakitas, M.; Lyons, K.D.; Hegel, M.T.; Balan, S.; Brokaw, F.C.; Seville, J.; Hull, J.G.; Li, Z.; Tosteson, T.D.; Byock, I.R.; et al. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: The Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009, 302, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hannon, B.; Swami, N.; Rodin, G.; Pope, A.; Zimmermann, C. Experiences of patients and caregivers with early palliative care: A qualitative study. Palliat. Med. 2017, 31, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mah, K.; Swami, N.; O’Connor, B.; Hannon, B.; Rodin, G.; Zimmermann, C. Early palliative intervention: Effects on patient care satisfaction in advanced cancer. BMJ Support. Palliat. Care 2022, 12, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, C.A.; Lelond, S.; Daeninck, P.J.; Rabbani, R.; Lix, L.; McClement, S.; Chochinov, H.M.; Goldenberg, B.A. The impact of early palliative care on the quality of life of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: The IMPERATIVE case-crossover study. Support. Care Cancer 2023, 31, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bajwah, S.; Oluyase, A.O.; Yi, D.; Gao, W.; Evans, C.J.; Grande, G.; Todd, C.; Costantini, M.; Murtagh, F.E.; Higginson, I.J. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 2020, CD012780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Carey, L.A.; Rugo, H.S.; Marcom, P.K.; Mayer, E.L.; Esteva, F.J.; Ma, C.X.; Liu, M.C.; Storniolo, A.M.; Rimawi, M.F.; Forero-Torres, A.; et al. TBCRC 001: Randomized Phase II Study of Cetuximab in Combination with Carboplatin in Stage IV Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 2615–2623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hall, A.; Bryant, J.; Sanson-Fisher, R.; Grady, A.; Proietto, A.; Doran, C.M. Top Priorities for Health Service Improvements Among Australian Oncology Patients. Patient Relat. Outcome Meas. 2021, 12, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wang, T.; Molassiotis, A.; Chung, B.P.M.; Tan, J.-Y. Unmet care needs of advanced cancer patients and their informal caregivers: A systematic review. BMC Palliat. Care 2018, 17, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of palliative cancer patients (n = 72).
Table 1. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of palliative cancer patients (n = 72).
Sociodemographic VariablesMSD
Age (years)74.6110.13
N%
Gender
Male3954.2
Female3345.8
Marital status
Married3850.8
Widowed2331.9
Single912.5
Divorced22.8
Education level
Primary education2940.3
No formal education2129.2
Secondary education1622.2
Higher education68.3
Clinical variablesMSD
Duration of palliative care (months)4.885.84
N%
Type of cancer
Colon1318.1
Lung1013.9
Breast79.7
Pancreatic68.3
Rectal56.9
Prostate45.6
Liver45.6
Oropharyngeal45.6
Kidney45.6
Lymphoma45.6
Bladder34.2
Brain34.2
Cervical34.2
Ovarian22.8
M: Mean, SD: Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 2. Results of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System of 72 palliative cancer patients.
Table 2. Results of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System of 72 palliative cancer patients.
Symptoms
(Range 0 to 10, 10 Being the Worst Possible Severity)		MSD
Pain4.313.12
Fatigue5.792.64
Nausea0.861.88
Depression4.063.23
Anxiety3.473.24
Drowsiness3.903.10
Dyspnea1.852.93
Loss of appetite3.763.24
Reduced wellbeing5.432.58
Sleep disorders3.352.98
Classification of symptomsMSD
Physical (range 0 to 60, 60 being the worst possible severity)20.6110.39
Emotional (range 0 to 40, 40 being the worst possible severity) 7.53 5.94
Total ESAS symptoms (range 0 to 100, 100 being the worst possible severity)32.2515.69
ESAS: Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, M: Mean, SD: Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 3. Self-reported quality of life assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C 30 in 72 cancer patients.
Table 3. Self-reported quality of life assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C 30 in 72 cancer patients.
Scores from 0 to 100MSD
Global health status (100 indicates the best condition)46.3023.27
Functional scales (100 indicates the best condition)
Physical functioning60.6532.80
Role functioning61.5734.22
Emotional functioning39.5125.80
Cognitive functioning28.7027.72
Social functioning52.7832.26
Symptom scales (0 indicates the best condition)
Fatigue52.1624.27
Nausea/vomiting 5.5616.55
Pain45.6033.10
Dyspnea23.6132.82
Insomnia35.6534.18
Loss of appetite27.7834.03
Constipation 9.7222.68
Diarrhoea 7.4521.10
Financial difficulties17.5026.14
EORTC QLQ-C 30: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 version 3, M: Mean, SD: Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 4. Results of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 in 72 in-home palliative cancer patients.
Table 4. Results of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 in 72 in-home palliative cancer patients.
Items (Range 1 to 4, Where 4 Is the Best Condition)MSD
How would you rate the quality of service you received?3.180.64
Did you get the kind of service you wanted?2.060.71
To what extent has our service met your needs?2.240.90
If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend our service to him or her?2.000.75
How satisfied are you with the amount of help you received?1.860.92
Have the services you received helped you to deal more effectively with your problems?2.880.71
In an overall, general sense, how satisfied are you with the service you received?3.430.67
If you were to seek help again, would you come back to our service? 2.080.85
Total score of the CSQ-8 (range 8 to 32, where 32 is the best condition)19.723.34
CSQ-8: Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8, M: Mean, SD: Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 5. Bivariate associations of satisfaction with health care, self-reported quality of life, and symptoms of 72 palliative cancer patients.
Table 5. Bivariate associations of satisfaction with health care, self-reported quality of life, and symptoms of 72 palliative cancer patients.
Spearman’s RhoCSQ-8ESASEORTC QLQ-C30
CSQ-8-−0.397 *0.486 *
ESAS−0.296 *-−0.490 *
EORTC QLQ-C300.426 *−0.490 *-
* means p < 0.05. CSQ-8: Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8, ESAS: Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, EORTC QLQ-C30: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 version 3.
Table
Table 6. Regression analysis of the CSQ-8 with quality of life and symptoms of 72 cancer patients.
Table 6. Regression analysis of the CSQ-8 with quality of life and symptoms of 72 cancer patients.
BSEp
Edmonton Symptom Assessment System −0.5040.0170.001
EORTC QLQ-C30−0.6400.0260.002
Dependent variable: CSQ-8, R2 = 0.338, with p < 0.001. CSQ-8: Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8, EORTC QLQ-C30: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 version 3.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Valero-Cantero, I.; Casals, C.; Espinar-Toledo, M.; Barón-López, F.J.; Martínez-Valero, F.J.; Vázquez-Sánchez, M.Á. Cancer Patients’ Satisfaction with In-Home Palliative Care and Its Impact on Disease Symptoms. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091272

AMA Style

Valero-Cantero I, Casals C, Espinar-Toledo M, Barón-López FJ, Martínez-Valero FJ, Vázquez-Sánchez MÁ. Cancer Patients’ Satisfaction with In-Home Palliative Care and Its Impact on Disease Symptoms. Healthcare. 2023; 11(9):1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091272

Chicago/Turabian Style

Valero-Cantero, Inmaculada, Cristina Casals, Milagrosa Espinar-Toledo, Francisco Javier Barón-López, Francisco Javier Martínez-Valero, and María Ángeles Vázquez-Sánchez. 2023. "Cancer Patients’ Satisfaction with In-Home Palliative Care and Its Impact on Disease Symptoms" Healthcare 11, no. 9: 1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091272

APA Style

Valero-Cantero, I., Casals, C., Espinar-Toledo, M., Barón-López, F. J., Martínez-Valero, F. J., & Vázquez-Sánchez, M. Á. (2023). Cancer Patients’ Satisfaction with In-Home Palliative Care and Its Impact on Disease Symptoms. Healthcare, 11(9), 1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091272

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop