Cancer end-of-life care (EoLC) policies assume people want to die at home. We aimed to examine variations in preferences for place of death cross-nationally. A telephone survey of a random sample of individuals aged ≥16 in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. We determined where people would prefer to die if they had a serious illness such as advanced cancer, facilitating circumstances, personal values and experiences of illness, death and dying. Of 9344 participants, between 51% (95% CI: 48% to 54%) in Portugal and 84% (95% CI: 82% to 86%) in the Netherlands would prefer to die at home. Cross-national analysis found there to be an influence of circumstances and values but not of experiences of illness, death and dying. Four factors were associated with a preference for home death in more than one country: younger age up to 70+ (Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain), increased importance of dying in the preferred place (England, Germany, Portugal, Spain), prioritizing keeping a positive attitude (Germany, Spain) and wanting to involve family in decisions if incapable (Flanders, Portugal). At least two-thirds of people prefer a home death in all but one country studied. The strong association with personal values suggests keeping home care at the heart of cancer EoLC.

If access to effective palliative care is to extend beyond cancer patients, an understanding of the comparative prevalence of palliative care problems among cancer and non-cancer patients is necessary. This systematic review aimed to describe and compare the prevalence of seventeen palliative care-related problems across the four palliative care domains among adults with advanced cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, chronic heart failure, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, Parkinson's disease, and dementia. Three databases were searched using three groups of keywords. The results of the extraction of the prevalence figures were summarized. The electronic searches yielded 4697 hits after the removal of 1784 duplicates. Of these hits, 143 met the review criteria. The greatest number of studies were found for advanced cancer (n=57) and ESRD patients (n=47), and 75 of the 143 studies used validated scales. Few data were available for people living with multiple sclerosis (n=2) and motor neuron disease (n=3). The problems with a prevalence of 50% or more found across most of the nine studied diagnostic groups were: pain, fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, and worry. There are commonalities in the prevalence of problems across cancer and non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for palliative care to be provided irrespective of diagnosis. The methodological heterogeneity across the studies and the lack of non-cancer studies need to be addressed in future research.

Background: Many patient-reported outcome measures have been developed in the past two decades, playing an increasingly important role in palliative care. However, their routine use in practice has been slow and difficult to implement. Aim: To systematically identify facilitators and barriers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in different palliative care settings for routine practice, and to generate evidence-based recommendations, to inform the implementation process in clinical practice. Design: Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Data Sources: Medline, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase and British Nursing Index were systematically searched from 1985. Hand searching of reference lists for all included articles and relevant review articles was performed. Results: A total of 3863 articles were screened. Of these, 31 articles met the inclusion criteria. First, data were integrated in the main themes: facilitators, barriers and lessons learned. Second, each main theme was grouped into either five or six categories. Finally, recommendations for implementation on outcome measures at management, health-care professional and patient levels were generated for three different points in time: preparation, implementation and assessment/improvement. Conclusions: Successful implementation of patient-reported outcome measures should be tailored by identifying and addressing potential barriers according to setting. Having a coordinator throughout the implementation process seems to be key. Ongoing cognitive and emotional processes of each individual should be taken into consideration during changes. The educational component prior to the implementation is crucial. This could promote ownership and correct use of the measure by clinicians, potentially improving practice and the quality of care provided through patient-reported outcome measure data use in clinical decision-making.

Informal carers in cancer and palliative care are known to have high needs and psychological morbidity, yet a literature review identified few targeted interventions. This systematic review of interventions for carers of patients using home cancer and palliative care services searched Medline, CancerLit, PsycInfo and Cinahl databases. The terms used were carer(s), caregiver(s), palliative and cancer. Papers that reported interventions for adults actively providing informal care for noninstitutionalized cancer and palliative care patients were reviewed. Twenty-two interventions were identified, comprising home nursing care (four), respite services (three), social networks and activity enhancement (two), problem solving and education (three) and group work (10). Of these, nine were delivered solely to carers (i.e., were targeted services). Only six of the carers' interventions had been evaluated, two of these had used a randomized control trial (RCT; grades IB), three employed a single group methodology (two prospective grades IIIC and one retrospective grade IIIC) and one was evaluated using facilitator feedback. There was a lack of outcome evaluation designs, small sample sizes and a reliance on intervention descriptions and formative evaluations. Methodological challenges may mean alternatives to ‘pure’ RCTs should be considered. The current evidence contributes more to understanding feasibility and acceptability than to effectiveness. Practitioners and evaluators must prioritize the further development of intervention studies.

Despite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field.