Do family health conversations impact patients with glioblastoma multiforme and their family members?

Abstract

Aims and objectives To assess the impact of family health conversations (FamHC) as a supplement to conventional care on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), family functioning (FFSS) and family hardiness or resilience (FHI) 4 and 14 weeks postoperatively among patients with glioblastoma multiforme and their family members. Background There is a lack of knowledge about the efficiency of FamHC among families experiencing glioblastoma multiforme. Design A quasi‐experimental pre‐ and post‐test design adhering to the STROBE (Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) guidelines for case–control studies. Patients and family members were included consecutively in the pretest period from November 2013–December 2014 for the control group (offered traditional care only), and in the post‐test period from January 2015–December 2015 for the intervention group (offered traditional care and FamHC). For both groups, 4 and 14 weeks postoperative measurement were obtained. Methods Differences in outcomes were assessed using a difference‐in‐difference regression analysis approach measuring difference across pre and post groups and across 4 and 14 weeks measurements. Results The study does not reveal significant effects of FamHC (all p‐values larger than 0.05) as measured by the three instruments WHOQOL‐BREF, FFSS and FHI. Conclusions The present study was not able to show significant effects of FamHC. However, it cannot be left out that the intervention might be helpful and supportive at a later state of the illness trajectory. Relevance for clinical practice The study adds to the growing evidence‐based knowledge on FamHC by questioning their potential use in different cultural contexts among families experiencing critical illness. Oncological nurses need to adapt this information to support their daily care for the patients and their close relatives. For future studies, it is recommended that the families themselves choose when the conversations should take place during the course of the illness.

Effects of family nursing conversations on families in home health care: A controlled before‐and‐after study

“…The existing evidence suggests that conversations based on Family Systems Nursing can improve families' perceptions of the support they receive from professional caregivers (Petursdottir & Svavarsdottir, 2019;Sveinbjarnardottir et al, 2013) and may also improve family functioning (Lee et al, 2018;Sundin et al, 2016) and possibly health-related quality of life (Lämås et al, 2016) and caregiver burden (Petursdottir & Svavarsdottir, 2019). Results are, however, somewhat inconsistent with respect to these outcomes (Dorell et al, 2017;Faarup et al, 2019;Østergaard et al, 2018). In addition, the effects of these conversations in HHC have not yet been studied in an experimental design, with the exception of palliative home care (Petursdottir & Svavarsdottir, 2019)…”

Effectiveness of Nursing Interventions for Patients With Cancer and their Family Members: A Systematic Review

“…Table 2 outlines the main characteristics of the studies. In terms of study design, 13 studies were randomized controlled trial (RCT) design (Badger et al, 2013, 2020; Belgacem et al, 2013; Couper et al, 2015; Hendrix et al, 2011; Kochaki Nejad et al, 2016; Lewis et al, 2019; McCaughan et al, 2018; Moghaddam Tabrizi & Alizadeh, 2018; Northouse et al, 2013; Sherwood et al, 2012; Thakur et al, 2019; Valeberg et al, 2013), whereas the remaining 6 studies were quasi-experimental studies design (Badger et al, 2011; Bilgin & Gozum, 2016; Çol & Kılıç, 2019; Faarup et al, 2019; Li et al, 2015; Titler et al, 2017).…”

“…Five studies identified the target population as couples in which one of the partners had been diagnosed with cancer and the spouse was the primary caregiver (Çol & Kılıç, 2019; Couper et al, 2015; Lewis et al, 2019; Li et al, 2015; McCaughan et al, 2018). In the remaining studies, the patient was asked to identify the family caregiver most involved in their care or his or her primary source of emotional and/or physical support, but this person was not necessarily their partner (Badger et al, 2011, 2013, 2020; Belgacem et al, 2013; Bilgin & Gozum, 2016; Faarup et al, 2019; Hendrix et al, 2011; Moghaddam Tabrizi & Alizadeh, 2018; Northouse et al, 2013; Sherwood et al, 2012; Titler et al, 2017; Valeberg et al, 2013).…”

“…Studies focused on patients with diverse types of cancer: breast cancer ( n = 5) (Badger et al, 2013, 2020; Çol & Kılıç, 2019; Kochaki Nejad et al, 2016; Lewis et al, 2019; Moghaddam Tabrizi & Alizadeh, 2018), prostate cancer ( n = 3) (Badger et al, 2011; Couper et al, 2015; McCaughan et al, 2018), stomach cancer ( n = 1) (Bilgin & Gozum, 2016), glioblastoma multiforme ( n = 1) (Faarup et al, 2019), hematologic malignant tumor ( n = 1) (Hendrix et al, 2011), bone metastasis ( n = 1) (Valeberg et al, 2013), intracranial tumors ( n = 1) (Thakur et al, 2019), and five studies did not specify the type of cancer or included different types of cancer (Belgacem et al, 2013; Li et al, 2015; Northouse et al, 2013; Sherwood et al, 2012; Titler et al, 2017).…”

Effect of family nursing therapeutic conversations on patients with heart failure and their family members: Secondary outcomes of a randomised multicentre trial

“…Family interventions do not seem to have any effect on health‐related quality of life, self‐care manners and signs of depression. (Agren et al, 2012; Faarup et al, 2019; Østergaard, Mahrer‐Imhof, et al, 2018; Schwarz et al, 2008); however, social support from spouses, significant others, family and friends play an essential part in supporting with numerous of self‐care‐related behaviours in patients with heart failure (Graven & Grant, 2014; Stromberg, 2013).…”