Cargando…
How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA)
BACKGROUND: Clinical care alone at the end of life is unlikely to meet all needs. Volunteers are a key resource, acceptable to patients, but there is no evidence on care outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether support from a social action volunteer service is better than usual care at improv...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146890/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27931214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0746-8 |
_version_ | 1782473574202736640 |
---|---|
author | Walshe, Catherine Dodd, Steven Hill, Matt Ockenden, Nick Payne, Sheila Preston, Nancy Perez Algorta, Guillermo |
author_facet | Walshe, Catherine Dodd, Steven Hill, Matt Ockenden, Nick Payne, Sheila Preston, Nancy Perez Algorta, Guillermo |
author_sort | Walshe, Catherine |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Clinical care alone at the end of life is unlikely to meet all needs. Volunteers are a key resource, acceptable to patients, but there is no evidence on care outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether support from a social action volunteer service is better than usual care at improving quality of life for adults in the last year of life. METHODS: A pragmatic, multi-centre wait-list controlled trial, with participants randomly allocated to receive the volunteer support intervention either immediately or after a 4 week wait. Trained volunteers provided tailored face-to-face support including befriending, practical support and signposting to services, primarily provided within the home, typically for 2–3 hours per week. The primary outcome was rate of change of quality of life at 4 weeks (WHO QOL BREF, a general, culturally sensitive measure). Secondary outcomes included rate of change of quality of life at 8 weeks and Loneliness (De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), social support (mMOS-SS), and reported use of health and social care services at 4 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 196 adults (61% (n = 109) female; mean age 72 years) were included in the study. No significant difference was found in main or secondary outcomes at 4 weeks. Rate of change of quality of life showed trends in favour of the intervention (physical quality of life domain: b = 3.98, CI, –0.38 to 8.34; psychological domain: b = 2.59, CI, –2.24 to 7.43; environmental domain: b = 3, CI, –4.13 to 4.91). Adjusted analyses to control for hours of volunteer input found significantly less decrease in physical quality of life in the intervention group (slope (b) 4.43, CI, 0.10 to 8.76). While the intervention also favoured the rate of change of emotional (b = –0.08; CI, –0.52 to 0.35) and social loneliness (b = –0.20; CI, –0.58 to 0.18), social support (b = 0.13; CI, –0.13 to 0.39), and reported use of health and social care professionals (b = 0.16; CI, –0.22 to 0.55), these were not statistically significant. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians can confidently refer to volunteer services at the end of life. Future research should focus on ‘dose’ to maximise likely impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered. ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN12929812, registered 20 May 2015. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5146890 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-51468902016-12-15 How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA) Walshe, Catherine Dodd, Steven Hill, Matt Ockenden, Nick Payne, Sheila Preston, Nancy Perez Algorta, Guillermo BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Clinical care alone at the end of life is unlikely to meet all needs. Volunteers are a key resource, acceptable to patients, but there is no evidence on care outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether support from a social action volunteer service is better than usual care at improving quality of life for adults in the last year of life. METHODS: A pragmatic, multi-centre wait-list controlled trial, with participants randomly allocated to receive the volunteer support intervention either immediately or after a 4 week wait. Trained volunteers provided tailored face-to-face support including befriending, practical support and signposting to services, primarily provided within the home, typically for 2–3 hours per week. The primary outcome was rate of change of quality of life at 4 weeks (WHO QOL BREF, a general, culturally sensitive measure). Secondary outcomes included rate of change of quality of life at 8 weeks and Loneliness (De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), social support (mMOS-SS), and reported use of health and social care services at 4 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 196 adults (61% (n = 109) female; mean age 72 years) were included in the study. No significant difference was found in main or secondary outcomes at 4 weeks. Rate of change of quality of life showed trends in favour of the intervention (physical quality of life domain: b = 3.98, CI, –0.38 to 8.34; psychological domain: b = 2.59, CI, –2.24 to 7.43; environmental domain: b = 3, CI, –4.13 to 4.91). Adjusted analyses to control for hours of volunteer input found significantly less decrease in physical quality of life in the intervention group (slope (b) 4.43, CI, 0.10 to 8.76). While the intervention also favoured the rate of change of emotional (b = –0.08; CI, –0.52 to 0.35) and social loneliness (b = –0.20; CI, –0.58 to 0.18), social support (b = 0.13; CI, –0.13 to 0.39), and reported use of health and social care professionals (b = 0.16; CI, –0.22 to 0.55), these were not statistically significant. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians can confidently refer to volunteer services at the end of life. Future research should focus on ‘dose’ to maximise likely impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered. ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN12929812, registered 20 May 2015. BioMed Central 2016-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5146890/ /pubmed/27931214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0746-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Walshe, Catherine Dodd, Steven Hill, Matt Ockenden, Nick Payne, Sheila Preston, Nancy Perez Algorta, Guillermo How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA) |
title | How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA) |
title_full | How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA) |
title_fullStr | How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA) |
title_full_unstemmed | How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA) |
title_short | How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA) |
title_sort | how effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? a pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (elsa) |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146890/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27931214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0746-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT walshecatherine howeffectivearevolunteersatsupportingpeopleintheirlastyearoflifeapragmaticrandomisedwaitlisttrialinpalliativecareelsa AT doddsteven howeffectivearevolunteersatsupportingpeopleintheirlastyearoflifeapragmaticrandomisedwaitlisttrialinpalliativecareelsa AT hillmatt howeffectivearevolunteersatsupportingpeopleintheirlastyearoflifeapragmaticrandomisedwaitlisttrialinpalliativecareelsa AT ockendennick howeffectivearevolunteersatsupportingpeopleintheirlastyearoflifeapragmaticrandomisedwaitlisttrialinpalliativecareelsa AT paynesheila howeffectivearevolunteersatsupportingpeopleintheirlastyearoflifeapragmaticrandomisedwaitlisttrialinpalliativecareelsa AT prestonnancy howeffectivearevolunteersatsupportingpeopleintheirlastyearoflifeapragmaticrandomisedwaitlisttrialinpalliativecareelsa AT perezalgortaguillermo howeffectivearevolunteersatsupportingpeopleintheirlastyearoflifeapragmaticrandomisedwaitlisttrialinpalliativecareelsa |