No abstract

Background: Geographic disparities in access to palliative care cause unnecessary suffering near the end-of-life in low-access U.S. states. The psychological mechanisms accounting for state-level variation are poorly understood. Objective: To examine whether statewide differences in personality account for variation in palliative care access. Design: We combined 5 state-level datasets that included the 50 states and national capital. Palliative care access was measured by the Center to Advance Palliative Care 2015 state-by-state report card. State-level personality differences in openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and extraversion were identified in a report on 619,387 adults. The Census and Gallup provided covariate data. Regression analyses examined whether state-level personality predicted state-level palliative care access, controlling for population size, age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and political views. Sensitivity analyses controlled for rurality, nonprofit status, and hospital size. Results: Palliative care access was higher in states that were older, less racially diverse, higher in socioeconomic status, more liberal, and, as hypothesized, higher in openness. In regression analyses accounting for all predictors and covariates, higher openness continued to account for better state-level access to palliative care (b = 0.428, p = 0.008). Agreeableness also emerged as predicting better access. In sensitivity analyses, personality findings persisted, and less rural states and those with more nonprofits had better access. Conclusions: Palliative care access is worse in states lower in openness, meaning where residents are more skeptical, traditional, and concrete. Personality theory offers recommendations for palliative care advocates communicating with administrators, legislators, philanthropists, and patients to expand access in low-openness states.

No abstract

Objective Caregivers of patients with cancer are at significant risk for existential distress. Such distress negatively impacts caregivers’ quality of life and capacity to serve in their role as healthcare proxies, and ultimately, contributes to poor bereavement outcomes. Our team developed Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (MCP-C), the first targeted psychosocial intervention that directly addresses existential distress in caregivers. Method Nine caregivers of patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) enrolled in a pilot randomized controlled trial evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, and effects of MCP-C, and completed in-depth interviews about their experience in the therapy. One focus group with three MCP-C interventionists was also completed. Results Four key themes emerged from interviews: (1) MCP-C validated caregivers’ experience of caregiving; (2) MCP-C helped participants reframe their “caregiving identity” as a facet of their larger self-identity, by placing caregiving in the context of their life's journey; (3) MCP-C enabled caregivers to find ways to assert their agency through caregiving; and (4) the structure and sequence of sessions made MCP-C accessible and feasible. Feedback from interventionists highlighted several potential manual changes and overall ways in which MCP-C can help facilitate caregivers’ openness to discussing death and engaging in advanced care planning discussions with the patient. Significance of results The overarching goal of MCP-C is to allow caregivers to concurrently experience meaning and suffering; the intervention does not seek to deny the reality of challenges endured by caregivers, but instead to foster a connection to meaning and purpose alongside their suffering. Through in-depth interviews with caregivers and a focus group with MCP interventionists, we have refined and improved our MCP-C manual so that it can most effectively assist caregivers in experiencing meaning and purpose, despite inevitable suffering.

No abstract

Objective End‐of‐life care for patients with cancer is often overly burdensome, and palliative and hospice care are underutilized. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the mental health diagnoses of anxiety and depression were associated with variation in end‐of‐life care in metastatic cancer. Methods This study used electronic health data from 1,333 adults with metastatic cancer who received care at two academic health centers in Louisiana, USA, and died between 1/1/2011–12/31/2017. The study used descriptive statistics to characterize the sample and logistic regression to examine whether anxiety and depression diagnoses in the six months before death were associated with utilization outcomes (chemotherapy, intensive care unit [ICU] visits, emergency department visits, mechanical ventilation, inpatient hospitalization, palliative care encounters, and hospice utilization), while controlling for key demographic and health covariates. Results Patients (56.1% male; 65.6% White, 31.1% Black) commonly experienced depression (23.9%) and anxiety (27.2%) disorders within six months of death. Anxiety was associated with an increased likelihood of chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.42, p = 0.016), ICU visits (OR = 1.40, p = 0.013), and inpatient hospitalizations (OR = 1.85, p < 0.001) in the 30 days before death. Anxiety (OR = 1.95, p < 0.001) and depression (OR = 1.34, p = 0.038) were associated with a greater likelihood of a palliative encounter. Conclusions Patients with metastatic cancer who had an anxiety disorder were more likely to have burdensome end‐of‐life care, including chemotherapy, ICU visits, and inpatient hospitalizations in the 30 days before death. Depression and anxiety both increased the odds of palliative encounters. These results emphasize the importance of mental health considerations in end‐of‐life care.

No abstract

57 Background: There are geographic disparities in access to palliative care that cause unnecessary suffering near the end of life in low-access U.S. states. The psychological mechanisms explaining state-by-state variation in access to palliative care are poorly understood. Our objective was to examine whether state-level differences in personality explain state-by-state variation in palliative care access. Methods: We combined four datasets with state-level data for the 50 U.S. states and the national capitol. Palliative care access was measured by the Center to Advance Palliative Care 2015 state-by-state report card. Statewide personality differences were identified from a report on 619,387 adults who completed the well-validated Big Five Inventory, which assesses the five core personality dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and extraversion. The U.S. Census and Gallup provided data on covariates. Regression analyses examined whether state-level differences in personality predicted statewide access to palliative care, controlling for differences in population size, age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and political views. Results: Access to palliative care was worse in states that were younger, more racially diverse, lower in socioeconomic status, more politically conservative, and lower in openness. In regression analyses that simultaneously accounted for all predictors and covariates, only lower openness continued to explain worse state-level access to palliative care (β = 0.428, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Palliative care access is worse in states where people are lower in openness, meaning residents who are more skeptical, traditional, and concrete. Personality theory offers specific recommendations for palliative care advocates communicating with hospital administrators, legislators, philanthropists, and patients to expand access in low-openness states.