for people with dementia living in care homes, the QUALIDEM is recommended for measuring QoL. For residents without dementia, we recommend Kane et al.'s Psychosocial Quality of Life Domains questionnaire. Studies of higher methodological quality, assessing a wider range of measurement properties are needed to allow a more fully informed choice of QoL instrument.

The new SSEQ has good psychometric properties and is a clinically useful assessment of self-efficacy after stroke. The scale measures stroke survivors' self-efficacy with self-management and activities as two unidimensional constructs. It is recommended for use in clinical and research interventions, and in evaluating stroke self-management interventions.

Introduction Measuring the quality of care at the end of life and/or the quality of dying and death can be challenging. Some measurement tools seek to assess the quality of care immediately prior to death; others retrospectively assess, following death, the quality of end-of-life care. The comparative evaluation of the properties and application of the various instruments has been limited. Objective This systematic review identified and critically appraised the psychometric properties and applicability of tools used after death. Method We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for relevant studies. We then appraised the psychometric properties and the quality of reporting of the psychometric properties of the identified tools using the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) checklist. The protocol of this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016047296). Results The search identified 4751 studies. Of these, 33 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on the psychometric properties of 67 tools. These tools measured quality of care at the end of life (n = 35), quality of dying and death (n = 22), or both quality of care at the end of life and dying and death (n = 10). Most tools were completed by family carers (n = 57), with some also completed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n = 2) or just HCPs (n = 8). No single tool was found to be adequate across all the psychometric properties assessed. Two quality of care at the end of life tools-Care of the Dying Evaluation and Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life in Dementia-had strong psychometric properties in most respects. Two tools assessing quality of dying and death-the Quality of Dying and Death and the newly developed Staff Perception of End of Life Experience-had limited to moderate evidence of good psychometric properties. Two tools assessing both quality of care and quality of dying and death-the Quality Of Dying in Long-Term Care for cognitively intact populations and Good Death Inventory (Korean version)-had the best psychometric properties. Conclusion Four tools demonstrated some promise, but no single tool was consistent across all psychometric properties assessed. All tools identified would benefit from further psychometric testing.

Background With a prevalence of up to 16.5%, depression is one of the commonest mental disorders in people with advanced cancer. Depression reduces the quality of life (QoL) of patients and those close to them. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend treating depression using antidepressants and/or psychological treatments, such as cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT). Although CBT has been shown to be effective for people with cancer, it is unclear whether or not this is the case for people with advanced cancer and depression. Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment as usual (TAU) plus manualised CBT, delivered by high-level Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) practitioners, versus TAU for people with advanced cancer and depression, measured at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks. Design Parallel-group, single-blind, randomised trial, stratified by whether or not an antidepressant was prescribed, comparing TAU with CBT plus TAU. Setting Recruitment took place in oncology, hospice and primary care settings. CBT was delivered in IAPT centres or/and over the telephone. Participants Patients (N = 230; n = 115 in each arm) with advanced cancer and depression. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of cancer not amenable to cure, a DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) diagnosis of depressive disorder using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, a sufficient understanding of English and eligibility for treatment in an IAPT centre. Exclusion criteria were an estimated survival of < 4 months, being at high risk of suicide and receiving, or having received in the last 2 months, a psychological intervention recommended by NICE for treating depression. Interventions (1) Up to 12 sessions of manualised individual CBT plus TAU delivered within 16 weeks and (2) TAU. Outcome measures The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory, version 2 (BDI-II) score at 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, satisfaction with care, EuroQol-5 Dimensions and the Client Services Receipt Inventory, at 12 and 24 weeks. Results A total of 80% of treatments (185/230) were analysed: CBT (plus TAU) (n = 93) and TAU (n = 92) for the BDI-II score at all time points using multilevel modelling. CBT was not clinically effective [treatment effect –0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.76 to 1.08; p = 0.39], nor was there any benefit for other measures. A subgroup analysis of those widowed, divorced or separated showed a significant effect of CBT on the BDI-II (treatment effect –7.21, 95% CI –11.15 to –3.28; p < 0.001). Economic analysis revealed that CBT has higher costs but produces more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than TAU. The mean service costs for participants (not including the costs of the interventions) were similar across the two groups. There were no differences in EQ-5D median scores at baseline, nor was there any advantage of CBT over TAU at 12 weeks or 24 weeks. There was no statistically significant improvement in QALYs at 24 weeks. Limitations Although all participants satisfied a diagnosis of depression, for some, this was of less than moderate severity at baseline, which could have attenuated treatment effects. Only 64% (74/115) took up CBT, comparable to the general uptake through IAPT. Conclusions Cognitive–behavioural therapy (delivered through IAPT) does not achieve any clinical benefit in advanced cancer patients with depression. The benefit of CBT for people widowed, divorced or separated is consistent with other studies. Alternative treatment options for people with advanced cancer warrant evaluation. Screening and referring those widowed, divorced or separated to IAPT for CBT may be beneficial. Whether or not improvements in this subgroup are due to non-specific therapeutic effects needs investigation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07622709. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundDepression is one of the most common mental disorders in people with advanced cancer. Although cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective for depression in people with cancer, it is unclear whether this is the case for people with advanced cancer and depression.AimsWe sought to determine whether CBT is more clinically effective than treatment as usual (TAU) for treating depression in people with advanced cancer (trial registration number ISRCTN07622709).MethodA multi-centre, parallel-group single-blind randomised controlled trial comparing TAU with CBT (plus TAU). Participants (n = 230) with advanced cancer and depression were randomly allocated to (a) up to 12 sessions of individual CBT or (b) TAU. The primary outcome measure was the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Secondary outcome measures included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and Satisfaction with Care.ResultsMultilevel modelling, including complier-average intention-to-treat analysis, found no benefit of CBT. CBT delivery was proficient, but there was no treatment effect (−0.84, 95% CI −2.76 to 1.08) or effects for secondary measures. Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested an effect of CBT on the BDI-II in those widowed, divorced or separated (−7.21, 95% CI −11.15 to −3.28).ConclusionsUK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend CBT for treating depression. Delivery of CBT through the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme has been advocated for long-term conditions such as cancer. Although it is feasible to deliver CBT through IAPT proficiently to people with advanced cancer, this is not clinically effective. CBT for people widowed, divorced or separated needs further exploration. Alternate models of CBT delivery may yield different results.