Intervention to Improve Supportive Care for Family Caregivers of Patients With Lung Cancer

Lung cancer may cause severe distress not only in patients but also in their family caregivers (FCs), with a direct impact on quality of life (QoL). Distress can be higher in FCs than in patients. Results from a recent study on continuity of cancer care conducted by the investigators support these findings, as a significantly larger proportion of FCs than patients reported high levels of anxiety and distress early after the diagnosis of lung cancer and this difference remained after 6 and 12 months. Several cancer centers have implemented systematic distress screening program during the care trajectory, but they target only patients without extending it to FCs. This study aims to implement and assess the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention to improve supportive care for FCs of patients with lung cancer.

Specific objectives:

1. To assess the effectiveness of the intervention on:

   1.1 Caregivers' outcomes: distress (primary outcome), anxiety, depression, QoL, needs, burden, perception of health, preparedness in caregiving, perceived social support 1.2 Patients' outcomes: distress, anxiety, depression, QoL, pain and other symptom relief 1.3 Care process outcomes: FCs and patients' utilization of services

2. To further document and describe:

2.1 In the experimental group: FCs perceived usefulness of the intervention and perceived effect on distress/QoL 2.2 In the oncology team: perceived usefulness of the intervention and perceived effect on their practice/organization of care Methods: An experimental design is used to test the intervention during 9 months in a pulmonary oncology clinic in Quebec City where a distress screening tool is implemented for cancer patients (but not for FCs). A total of 120 FCs of patients newly diagnosed with a non-surgical lung cancer, followed at the clinic have been randomly assigned to either the intervention (experimental group N=60) or to usual care (control group N=60). Considering a 20% withdrawal rate (due to death or severe deterioration of patients' condition), this sample size allows to detect a 33% difference in distress scores between the two groups, with an estimated baseline distress score (with the HADS) of 13.7±7 (range 0-42), a 5% alpha error and a power of 80%. The intervention comprises 3 components: 1) systematic distress screening and problems assessment of FCs at their relative's cancer diagnosis and then, every 2 months for a maximum of 9 months; 2) privileged contact with an oncology nurse away from the patient to further identify and address FCs' problems; 3) liaison by the oncology nurse with the family physician of FCs who have reported a high level of distress (score ≥ 4 on the distress thermometer, which indicates a need for intervention), or who have mentioned needing help. In both groups, outcomes related to FCs and to care processes are measured with validated tools at baseline and every 3 months, for a maximum of 9 months. Measures are taken at the same intervals with patients since their physical and mental health may influence FCs' distress. Individual interviews with 12 FCs are planned to assess the usefulness of the intervention and its effect on their QoL. Interviews with the pivot nurses in oncology will document their satisfaction regarding the intervention and its effect on their practice.

Relevance. This translational study aims to assess the effectiveness of an intervention that transfers into practice the main recommendations of governmental authorities and experts regarding integrated care to globally improve cancer supportive care. It has the potential to make a significant impact on the burden of disease for FCs and to improve their quality of care. If proven effective, the conditions of success of this intervention could be replicated in other settings and for other types of cancer.