Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32484432›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Carer administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home: the CARiAD feasibility RCT.

Marlise Poolman, Jessica Roberts, Stella Wright, Annie Hendry, Nia Goulden, Emily Af Holmes, Anthony Byrne, Paul Perkins, Zoe Hoare, Annmarie Nelson and 13 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Learning from end-of-life injectable medication patient safety incidents in the community: a mixed-methods analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Marlise PoolmanSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2837-363X
Jessica RobertsSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3271-1814
Stella WrightSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9634-6273
Annie HendrySchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2112-1368
Nia GouldenNorth Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6511-3987
Emily Af HolmesSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0479-5336
Anthony ByrneMarie Curie Research Centre, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1413-1496
Paul PerkinsGloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6848-967X
Zoe HoareNorth Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1803-5482
Annmarie NelsonMarie Curie Research Centre, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6075-8425
Julia HiscockSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8963-2981
Dyfrig HughesSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8247-7459
Julie O'ConnorSue Ryder Leckhampton Court Hospice, Cheltenham, UK.
Betty FosterPublic Contributor, North Wales Cancer Patient Forum, North Wales Cancer Treatment Centre, Bodelwyddan, UK.
Liz ReymondBrisbane South Palliative Care Collaborative, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6617-4618
Sue HealyMetro South Palliative Care Service, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9021-5835
Penney LewisCentre for Medical Law and Ethics, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7217-5884
Bee WeeHarris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7714-0349
Rosalynde JohnstoneBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1642-5356
Rossela RobertsSchool of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1775-0986
Anne ParkinsonSue Ryder Leckhampton Court Hospice, Cheltenham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4495-5127
Sian RobertsBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4883-4122
Clare WilkinsonSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0378-8078
Bangor University · GBBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board · GBMarie Curie · GBGloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBGriffith University · AUKing's College London · GBMetro South Health · AUUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health 15/10/37Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost people who are dying want to be cared for at home, but only half of them achieve this. The likelihood of a home death often depends on the availability of able and willing lay carers. When people who are dying are unable to take oral medication, injectable medication is used. When top-up medication is required, a health-care professional travels to the dying person's home, which may delay symptom relief. The administration of subcutaneous medication by lay carers, although not widespread UK practice, has proven to be key in achieving better symptom control for those dying at home in other countries.

objectivesTo determine if carer administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for common breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home is feasible and acceptable in the UK, and if it would be feasible to test this intervention in a future definitive randomised controlled trial.

designWe conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised, open pilot trial of the intervention versus usual care, with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, using convergent mixed methods.

settingHome-based care without 24/7 paid care provision, in three UK sites.

participantsParticipants were dyads of adult patients and carers: patients in the last weeks of their life who wished to die at home and lay carers who were willing to be trained to give subcutaneous medication. Strict risk assessment criteria needed to be met before approach, including known history of substance abuse or carer ability to be trained to competency.

interventionIntervention-group carers received training by local nurses using a manualised training package.

main outcome measuresQuantitative data were collected at baseline and 6-8 weeks post bereavement and via carer diaries. Interviews with carers and health-care professionals explored attitudes to, experiences of and preferences for giving subcutaneous medication and experience of trial processes. The main outcomes of interest were feasibility, acceptability, recruitment rates, attrition and selection of the most appropriate outcome measures.

resultsIn total, 40 out of 101 eligible dyads were recruited (39.6%), which met the feasibility criterion of recruiting > 30% of eligible dyads. The expected recruitment target (≈50 dyads) was not reached, as fewer than expected participants were identified. Although the overall retention rate was 55% (22/40), this was substantially unbalanced [30% (6/20) usual care and 80% (16/20) intervention]. The feasibility criterion of > 40% retention was, therefore, considered not met. A total of 12 carers (intervention,

conclusionThe success of a future definitive trial is uncertain because of equivocal results in the progression criteria, particularly poor recruitment overall and a low retention rate in the usual-care group. Future work regarding the intervention should include understanding the context of UK areas where this has been adopted, ascertaining wider public views and exploring health-care professional views on burden and risk in the NHS context. There should be consideration of the need for national policy and of the most appropriate quantitative outcome measures to use. This will help to ascertain if there are unanswered questions to be studied in a trial.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN11211024.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

CaregiversHome Care ServicesMedication AdherenceTerminally IllAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInjections, SubcutaneousMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTerminal CareUnited KingdomCARERSCOMMUNITY HEALTH CAREINJECTIONSPAIN, BREAKTHROUGHPALLIATIVE CARE MEDICINESUBCUTANEOUSSYMPTOM ASSESSMENTTERMINAL CARE

Identifiers

PMID32484432
PMCPMC7294396
OpenAlexW3031400772

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.