Serious life-threatening and life-limiting illnesses place an enormous burden on society and health systems. Understanding how this burden will evolve in the future is essential to inform policies that alleviate suffering and prevent health system weakening. We aimed to project the global burden of serious health-related suffering requiring palliative care until 2060 by world regions, age groups, and health conditions. We projected the future burden of serious health-related suffering as defined by the Lancet Commission on Palliative Care and Pain Relief, by combining WHO mortality projections (2016-60) with estimates of physical and psychological symptom prevalence in 20 conditions most often associated with symptoms requiring palliative care. Projections were described in terms of absolute numbers and proportional change compared with the 2016 baseline data. Results were stratified by World Bank income regions and WHO geographical regions. By 2060, an estimated 48 million people (47% of all deaths globally) will die with serious health-related suffering, which represents an 87% increase from 26 million people in 2016. 83% of these deaths will occur in low-income and middle-income countries. Serious health-related suffering will increase in all regions, with the largest proportional rise in low-income countries (155% increase between 2016 and 2060). Globally, serious health-related suffering will increase most rapidly among people aged 70 years or older (183% increase between 2016 and 2060). In absolute terms, it will be driven by rises in cancer deaths (16 million people, 109% increase between 2016 and 2060). The condition with the highest proportional increase in serious-related suffering will be dementia (6 million people, 264% increase between 2016 and 2060). The burden of serious health-related suffering will almost double by 2060, with the fastest increases occurring in low-income countries, among older people, and people with dementia. Immediate global action to integrate palliative care into health systems is an ethical and economic imperative. Research Challenge Fund, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London.

Background: Few measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. Aim: To validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. Design: Concurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale – both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test–retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change). Setting/participants: In all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany Results: We confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher – reflecting more problems – in those patients with ‘unstable’ or ‘deteriorating’ versus ‘stable’ Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (α = 0.77) and acceptable to good test–retest reliability (60% of items k_w > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good. Conclusion: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, determine the impact of healthcare interventions, and demonstrate quality of care. This represents a major step forward internationally for palliative care outcome measurement.

Background: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a newly developed advancement of the Palliative care Outcome Scale. It assesses patient-reported symptoms and other concerns. Cognitive interviewing is recommended for questionnaire refinement but not adopted widely in palliative care research. Aim: To explore German- and English-speaking patients’ views on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale with a focus on comprehensibility and acceptability, and subsequently refine the questionnaire. Methods: Bi-national (United Kingdom/Germany) cognitive interview study using ‘think aloud’ and verbal probing techniques. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis and pre-defined categories. Results from both countries were collated and discussed. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale was then refined by consensus. Setting/participants: Purposely sampled patients from four palliative care teams in palliative care units, general hospital wards and in the community. Results: A total of 15 German and 10 UK interviews were conducted. Overall, comprehension and acceptability of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were good. Identified difficulties comprised the following: (1) comprehension problems with specific terms (e.g. ‘mouth problems’) and length of answer options; (2) judgement difficulties, for example, due to the 3-day recall for questions; and (3) layout problems. Combining the results from both countries (e.g. regarding ‘felt good about yourself’) and discussing them from both languages’ perspectives resulted in wider consideration of the items’ meaning, enabling more detailed refinement. Conclusion: Cognitive interviewing proved valuable to increase face and content validity of the questionnaire. The concurrent approach in two languages – to our knowledge the first such approach in palliative care – benefited the refinement. Psychometric validation of the refined Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is now underway.

Background: Palliative care patients are often described as complex but evidence on complexity is limited. We need to understand complexity, including at individual patient-level, to define specialist palliative care, characterise palliative care populations and meaningfully compare interventions/outcomes. Aim: To explore palliative care stakeholders’ views on what makes a patient more or less complex and insights on capturing complexity at patient-level. Design: In-depth qualitative interviews, analysed using Framework analysis. Participants/setting: Semi-structured interviews across six UK centres with patients, family, professionals, managers and senior leads, purposively sampled by experience, background, location and setting (hospital, hospice and community). Results: 65 participants provided an understanding of complexity, which extended far beyond the commonly used physical, psychological, social and spiritual domains. Complexity included how patients interact with family/professionals, how services’ respond to needs and societal perspectives on care. ‘Pre-existing’, ‘cumulative’ and ‘invisible’ complexity are further important dimensions to delivering effective palliative and end-of-life care. The dynamic nature of illness and needs over time was also profoundly influential. Adapting Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, we categorised findings into the microsystem (person, needs and characteristics), chronosystem (dynamic influences of time), mesosystem (interactions with family/health professionals), exosystem (palliative care services/systems) and macrosystem (societal influences). Stakeholders found it acceptable to capture complexity at the patient-level, with perceived benefits for improving palliative care resource allocation. Conclusion: Our conceptual framework encompasses additional elements beyond physical, psychological, social and spiritual domains and advances systematic understanding of complexity within the context of palliative care. This framework helps capture patient-level complexity and target resource provision in specialist palliative care.