IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0200532.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participant perspectives of a home-based palliative approach for people with severe multiple sclerosis: A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Ambra Mara Giovannetti
  • Claudia Borreani
  • Elisabetta Bianchi
  • Andrea Giordano
  • Sabina Cilia
  • Susanna Cipollari
  • Ilaria Rossi
  • Claudia Cavallaro
  • Valentina Torri Clerici
  • Edoardo Rossetti
  • Maria Consiglia Stefanelli
  • Amadio Totis
  • Angelo Pappalardo
  • Gina Occhipinti
  • Paolo Confalonieri
  • Simone Veronese
  • Maria Grazia Grasso
  • Francesco Patti
  • Paola Zaratin
  • Mario Alberto Battaglia
  • Alessandra Solari
  • on behalf of the PeNSAMI project

Abstract

Background: We performed a qualitative study to investigate the experiences of participants in a multicentre randomized controlled trial on a home-based palliative approach (HPA) for adults with severe multiple sclerosis (MS) and their caregivers. Our aim was to explore the strengths and challenges of the intervention, and circumstances that may have influenced its efficacy. Methods: Participants to the qualitative study were the patients, their caregivers, patient referring physicians, and the teams who delivered the HPA intervention. We performed semi-structured one-on-one interviews with 12 patients and 15 informal caregivers chosen using a maximum variation strategy, two focus group meetings with patient referring physicians (4 participants each), and one with the HPA teams (9 participants). Results: From data analysis (framework method) 38 sub-categories emerged, which were grouped into 10 categories and 3 themes: 'expectations,' 'met and unmet needs', and 'barriers’. Intervention benefits were improved control of symptoms and reduced sense of isolation of the patient-caregiver dyads. Limitations were: factors related to experimental design (difficulty of dyads in identifying examiner and team roles, additional burden for caregivers); team issues (insufficient team building /supervision, competing priorities); limitations of the intervention itself (insufficient length, lack of rehabilitation input); and external factors (resource limitations, under-responsive services/professionals). The referring physician focus groups provided little experiential data. Conclusions: The HPA reduced patient symptoms and sense of isolation in patients and caregivers. The indirect role of the HPA teams, and insufficient length of the intervention were key limitations. The experimental design imposed additional burdens on the dyads. Key barriers were the paucity of available services, the demanding administrative procedures, and lack of networking facilities. These findings suggest that two major requirements are necessary for home palliative care to be effective in this patient population: HPA teams well-connected with MS rehabilitation services, and care delivered over the long-term, with variable intensity. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73082124 (Registered 19/06/2014).

Suggested Citation

  • Ambra Mara Giovannetti & Claudia Borreani & Elisabetta Bianchi & Andrea Giordano & Sabina Cilia & Susanna Cipollari & Ilaria Rossi & Claudia Cavallaro & Valentina Torri Clerici & Edoardo Rossetti & Ma, 2018. "Participant perspectives of a home-based palliative approach for people with severe multiple sclerosis: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200532
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200532
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200532
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200532&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0200532?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.