Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30107809›Full record

Trial reportTrials2018

The Heidelberg Milestones Communication Approach (MCA) for patients with prognosis <12 months: protocol for a mixed-methods study including a randomized controlled trial.

Anja Siegle, Matthias Villalobos, Jasmin Bossert, Katja Krug, Laura Hagelskamp, Johannes Krisam, Violet Handtke, Nicole Deis, Jana Jünger, Michel Wensing and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Consideration of sense of coherence in a structured communication approach with stage IV lung cancer patients and their informal caregivers: a qualitative interview study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anja SiegleDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Thoraxklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Hospital, Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg (TLRC-H), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Röntgenstraße 1, D-69126, Heidelberg, Germany. anja.siegle@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0164-9931
Matthias VillalobosDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Thoraxklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Hospital, Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg (TLRC-H), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Röntgenstraße 1, D-69126, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jasmin BossertDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Katja KrugDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Laura HagelskampDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Thoraxklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Hospital, Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg (TLRC-H), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Röntgenstraße 1, D-69126, Heidelberg, Germany.
Johannes KrisamInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Violet HandtkeDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Thoraxklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Hospital, Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg (TLRC-H), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Röntgenstraße 1, D-69126, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nicole DeisThe German National Institute for State Examinations in Medicine, Pharmacy and Psychotherapy, Große Langgasse 8, 55116, Mainz, Germany.
Jana JüngerThe German National Institute for State Examinations in Medicine, Pharmacy and Psychotherapy, Große Langgasse 8, 55116, Mainz, Germany.
Michel WensingDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael ThomasDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Thoraxklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Hospital, Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg (TLRC-H), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Röntgenstraße 1, D-69126, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DE

Funding

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit 1504-54401National Center for Tumor Diseases G835
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe care needs of patients with a limited prognosis (<12 months median) are complex and dynamic. Patients and caregivers must cope with many challenges, including physical symptoms and disabilities, uncertainty. and compromised self-efficacy. Healthcare is often characterized by disruptions in the transition between healthcare providers. The Milestones Communication Approach (MCA) is a structured, proactive, interprofessional concept that involves physicians and nurses and is aimed at providing coherent care across the disease trajectory. This study aims to evaluate these aspects of MCA: (1) the training of healthcare professionals, (2) implementation context and outcomes, (3) patient outcomes, and (4) effects on interprofessional collaboration. METHODS/

designA multiphase mixed-methods design will be used for the study. A total of 100 patients and 120 healthcare professionals in a specialized oncology hospital will be involved. The training outcomes will be documented using a questionnaire. Implementation context and outcomes will be explored through semi-structured interviews and written questionnaires with healthcare professionals and with the training participants and through a content analysis of patient files. Patient outcomes will be assessed in a pragmatic non-blinded randomized controlled trial and in qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers. Trial outcomes are supportive care needs (SCNS-SF34-G), quality of life (SeiQol and Fact-L), depression and anxiety symptoms (PHQ-4), and distress (Distress Thermometer). Qualitative semi-structured interviews on patients' views will focus on shared decision-making, communication needs, feeling empathy, and further utilization of healthcare services. Interprofessional collaboration will be explored using the UWE-IP-D before the implementation of MCA (t0) and after 3 (t1), 9 (t2), and 12 (t3) months. DISCUSSION: Using guideline-concordant early palliative care, MCA aims to foster patient-centered communication with shared decision-making and facilitation of advance care planning including end-of-life decisions, thus increasing patient quality of life and decreasing aggressive medical care at the end of life. It is assumed that the communication skills training and interprofessional coaching will improve the communication behavior of healthcare providers and influence team communications and team processes.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00013649 and DRKS00013469. Registered on 22 December 2017.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary CommunicationLife ExpectancyPatient Care TeamAttitude of Health PersonnelCaregiversClinical ProtocolsCooperative BehaviorDecision MakingGermanyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicLung NeoplasmsNurse-Patient RelationsNursesOncologistsCommunicationComplex interventionImplementationInterprofessional relationsMultiphase mixed methodPalliative carePrognosisPrognostic awarenessRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID30107809
PMCPMC6092809
OpenAlexW2886523284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.