PURPOSE: High-quality end-of-life cancer care requires oncologists to communicate effectively and patients/caregivers to be participatory. However, most communication interventions target either but not both. We aimed to pilot a potentially disseminable combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention to improve oncologist empathic responses, discussions of prognosis and goals of care, and patient/caregiver participation. We assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy. METHODS: Between June 2018 and January 2019, we conducted a pilot 2-arm cluster trial in Singapore, randomly assigning 10 oncologists in a 1:1 ratio to receive the combined intervention or usual care. Intervention arm oncologists received online communication skills training, and their patients received a brief prompt sheet before consultations. We audio recorded consultations with 60 patients with stage IV solid malignancy and analyzed 30 in the postintervention phase. The study was not powered for statistical significance. RESULTS: Participation rates for oncologists and patients were 100% and 63%, respectively. All oncologists completed the online training within an average of 4.5 weeks; 73% of the patients selected at least 1 question in the prompt sheet. Compared with the control arm, intervention arm oncologists had more empathic responses in total (relative risk [RR], 1.66) and for every patient/caregiver negative emotion (RR, 2.01). Their consultations were more likely to involve discussions of prognosis (RR, 3.00) and goals of care, and their patients were more likely to ask a prognosis-related question (RR, 2.00; P > .05 for all). CONCLUSION: The combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention is feasible and acceptable and has the potential to improve communication within consultations.

BackgroundPoor adherence to medications is a global public health concern with substantial health and cost implications, especially for chronic conditions. In the USA, poor adherence is estimated to cause 125,000 deaths and cost $US100 billion annually. The most successful adherence-promoting strategies that have been identified so far have moderate effect, are relatively costly, and raise availability, feasibility, and/or scalability issues.ObjectiveThe main objective of SIGMA (Study on Incentives for Glaucoma Medication Adherence) was to measure the effectiveness on medication adherence of a novel incentive strategy based on behavioral economics that we refer to as adherence-contingent rebates. These rebates offered patients a near-term benefit while leveraging loss aversion and regret and increasing the salience of adherence.MethodsSIGMA is a 6-month randomized, controlled, open-label, single-center superiority trial with two parallel arms. A total of 100 non-adherent glaucoma patients from the Singapore National Eye Centre were randomized into intervention (adherence-contingent rebates) and usual care (no rebates) arms in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in percentage of adherent days at Month 6. The trial registration number is NCT02271269 and a detailed study protocol has been published elsewhere.FindingsWe found that participants who were offered adherence-contingent rebates were adherent to all their medications on 73.1% of the days after 6 months, which is 12.2 percentage points (p = 0.027) higher than in those not receiving the rebates after controlling for baseline differences. This better behavioral outcome was achieved by rebates averaging 8.07 Singapore dollars ($US5.94 as of 2 November 2017) per month during the intervention period.ConclusionThis study shows that simultaneously leveraging several insights from behavioral economics can significantly improve medication adherence rates. The relatively low cost of the rebates and significant health and cost implications of medication non-adherence suggest that this strategy has the potential to cost-effectively improve health outcomes for many conditions.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve quality of end-of-life (EOL) care are increasingly focused on eliciting patients' EOL preference through advance care planning (ACP). However, if patients' EOL preference changes over time and their ACP documents are not updated, these documents may no longer be valid at the time EOL decisions are made. OBJECTIVES: To assess extent and correlates of changes in stated preference for aggressive EOL care over time. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of a formal ACP program versus usual care in Singapore. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-two patients with heart failure (HF) and New York Heart Association Classification III and IV symptoms were recruited and interviewed every 4 months for up to 2 years to assess their preference for EOL care. Analytic sample included 200 patients interviewed at least twice. RESULTS: Nearly two thirds (64%) of patients changed their preferred type of EOL care at least once. Proportion of patients changing their stated preference for type of EOL care increased with time and the change was not unidirectional. Patients who understood their prognosis correctly were less likely to change their preference from non-aggressive to aggressive EOL care (OR 0.66, p value 0.07) or to prefer aggressive EOL care (OR 0.53; p value 0.001). On the other hand, patient-surrogate discussion of care preference was associated with a higher likelihood of change in patient preference from aggressive to nonaggressive EOL care (OR 1.83; p value 0.03). CONCLUSION:The study provides evidence of instability in HF patients' stated EOL care preference. This undermines the value of an ACP document recorded months before EOL decisions are made unless a strategy exists for easily updating this preference.