This pilot study aimed to investigate quality of life, psychological burden, unmet needs, and care satisfaction in family caregivers of advanced cancer patients (FCs) during specialized inpatient palliative care (SIPC) and to test feasibility and acceptance of the questionnaire survey. During a period of 12 weeks, FCs were recruited consecutively within 72 h after the patient’s admission. They completed validated scales on several outcomes: quality of life (SF-8), distress (DT), anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), supportive needs (FIN), palliative care outcome (POS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE-2). We used non-parametric tests, t-tests and correlation analyses to address our research questions. FCs showed high study commitment: 74 FCs were asked to participate whereof 54 (73%) agreed and 51 (69%) returned the questionnaire. Except for “bodily pain”, FCs’ quality of life (SF-8) was impaired in all subscales. Most FCs (96%) reported clinically significant own distress (DT), with sadness, sorrows and exhaustion being the most distressing problems (80–83%). Moderate to severe anxiety (GAD-7) and depression (PHQ-9) were prevalent in 43% and 41% of FCs, respectively. FCs scored a mean number of 16.3 of 20 needs (FIN) as very or extremely important (SD 3.3), 20% of needs were unmet in >50% of FCs. The mean POS score assessed by FCs was 16.6 (SD 5.0) and satisfaction (FAMCARE-2) was high (73.4; SD 8.3). This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of the questionnaire survey and showed relevant psychosocial burden and unmet needs in FCs during SIPC. However, FCs’ satisfaction with SIPC seemed to be high. A current multicenter study evaluates these findings longitudinally in a large cohort of FCs.

Background: This study prospectively evaluated distress, depressive and anxiety symptoms as well as associated factors in family caregivers (FC) of advanced cancer patients at initiation of specialist inpatient palliative care. Methods: Within 72 h after the patient’s first admission, FCs were asked to complete German versions of the Distress Thermometer, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire depression module 9-item scale (PHQ-9) for outcome measure. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify associated factors. Results: In 232 FCs (62% spouses/partners), mean level of distress was 7.9 (SD 1.8; range, 2–10) with 95% presenting clinically relevant distress levels. Most frequent problems were sadness (91%), sorrows (90%), anxiety (78%), exhaustion (77%) and sleep disturbances (73%). Prevalence rates of moderate to severe anxiety and depressive symptoms were 47 and 39%, respectively. Only 25% of FCs had used at least one source of support previously. In multivariate regression analysis, being female (OR 2.525), spouse/partner (OR 2.714), exhaustion (OR 10.267), and worse palliative care outcome ratings (OR 1.084) increased the likelihood for moderate to severe anxiety symptom levels. Being female (OR 3.302), low socio-economic status (OR 6.772), prior patient care other than home-based care (OR 0.399), exhaustion (OR 3.068), sleep disturbances (OR 4.183), and worse palliative care outcome ratings (OR 1.100) were associated with moderate to severe depressive symptom levels. Conclusions: FCs of patients presenting with indication for specialist palliative care suffer from high distress and relevant depressive and anxiety symptoms, indicating the high need of psychological support not only for patients, but also their FCs. Several socio-demographic and care-related risk-factors influence mental burden of FCs and should be in professional caregivers’ focus in daily clinical practice.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the supportive care needs of family caregivers (FCs) of advanced cancer patients and their support service use at the beginning of specialist inpatient palliative care (SIPC), near the patient’s death, and during bereavement. Methods: FCs reported their needs using the Family Inventory of Needs (FIN), along with their utilization of psychosocial and bereavement support services at the beginning (N = 232) and 6–9 months after SIPC (N = 160). Results: At the beginning of SIPC, mean of 16.9 of 20 needs were reported to be highly important, and 12.2 were reported to be met. At the time of the patient’s death, 16.8 needs were highly important, and 13.8 were met. At both time points, the highest ranked need was related to information about changes in the patient’s condition (100% vs. 99%), and the most frequently unmet need was related to feeling hope (73% vs. 71%). Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed a low education level to be consistently related to a greater number of highly important needs. Higher satisfaction with care and better social support was related to a greater number of met needs. Twenty-five percent of FCs had accessed at least one psychosocial support service prior to SIPC, and 30% had done so during bereavement. Among non-users of support services, > 75% indicated sufficient informal support as a barrier to service use. Conclusions: The findings offer a useful guide for adequately addressing FCs’ needs in an effort to optimize FC support. However, only a subgroup of the FCs used support services. Better information and provision of tailored services might improve FCs’ situations in the future.

Background: Caring for patients with advanced or terminal diseases can confront family caregivers (FC) with ethical challenges. The present study aims at tracing paths connected to ethical challenges among FC of advanced cancer patients by exploring morally troubling situations and related burden, as well as strategies to handle the situation and experience of moral distress from the grieving FC’s perspective.Methods: Within a qualitative design, interviews with 12 grieving FC were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analysed using grounded theory and abductive reasoning.Results: Core phenomena identified were two paths connected to ethical challenges among FC. Ethical challenges occurred in the context of difficult decision-making (Path 1) and in the context of lacking decision-making options when no decision was to be made by FC (Path 2). We found each path to be triggered by distinct sets of morally troubling situations that occurred during the patient’s disease trajectory. In the course of difficult decision-making (Path 1), detrimental external factors could add emotional stress, thus making the decision-making process burdensome. FC used various proactive strategies to overcome those detrimental factors and/or to make the decision. Decisions in conflict with FCs' own moral expectations and values led to moral distress, generating painful emotions. When no decision was to be made by FC (Path 2), FC felt powerless and overrun, which was associated with major emotionality in terms of anxiety and confusion. Either detrimental factors aggravated these feelings to paralyzing shock, or internal resources enabled FC to accept the situation. While acceptance prevented moral distress, paralyzing shock often caused a sense of not meeting their their own moral expectations and values, resulting in moral distress. In both paths, factors were identified that helped FC finding closure and prevented moral residue. Nevertheless, some FC experienced residual moral distress months after the morally troubling situation had occurred.Conclusion: Findings provide first information towards understanding paths leading to ethical challenges in FC and can help clinicians to minimize associated emotional burden and moral distress.

Objective: Caregiving for a loved one is challenging and requires significant resources. Existential distress in family caregivers may include hopelessness, demoralization, fear of death, pre‐loss grief, or a sense of not being emotionally prepared. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the quantitative literature on existential distress among family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer, focusing on its prevalence, association with mental disorders, as well as with sociodemographic, disease, and treatment‐related factors.Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases for quantitative studies of the above‐described existential distress concepts in family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. Two independent reviewers extracted data and evaluated study quality. Data were analyzed using random‐effects meta‐analysis.Results: We retrieved 17.587 records, of which 31 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 63% of the studies (n = 20) provided sufficient data for meta‐analysis for 5558 patients. We found an overall pooled prevalence of 30.6% for existential distress, 95% CI [24.2–37.0]. For existential distress subconcepts, prevalence rates were 57.0%, 95% CI [37.8–76.2], for death anxiety, 13.9%, 95% CI [10.8–17.0], for demoralization, 24.0%, 95% CI [18.0–30.0], for pre‐loss grief, 18.4%, 95% CI [4.0–32.7], for hopelessness, 35.2%, 95% CI [28.2–42.2], for loneliness, and 35.6%, 95% CI [13.0–58.3], for emotional unpreparedness.Conclusions: Approximately one third of the respondents were affected by high levels of existential distress. The review provides evidence for further development of support services that can reduce existential distress, focused on death anxiety, and improve the quality of life for family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer.

Gender disparities of specific symptoms and problems have frequently been observed in palliative care patients, but research rarely focused on the range of problems and needs affected by gender. We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) of a hospital-based palliative care unit to examine gender effects on patients’ problems and needs based on systematically gathered qualitative data. Content analysis was used to identify emerging themes with data coded using MAXQDA. Ten patients (5 female, 5 male) and 17 HCPs (12 female, 5 male) were interviewed. Seven categories of gender-specific problems and needs emerged: “physical symptoms, care and body image”, “psychological symptoms and emotional response”, “interaction with the palliative care team”, “use of professional supportive measures”, “activation of informal social networks”, “decision-making”, and “preservation of autonomy and identity”. Both patients and HCPs felt that female patients adopt more expressive coping strategies, have stronger need for communication with and support of HCPs, and activate an extended social network for support and decision-making. Further, both groups thought that male patients mainly rely on social support from partners, have higher expectations to be cared for at home, and have higher need for preservation of autonomy. Gender relevantly impacts patients’ problems and needs during palliative care. Therefore, gender-sensitive palliative care that acknowledges the patient’s individual situation and respective ramifications are required.