Chronic IllnessHELP-FNCT07184216
Effect of a Person-Centred Care Intervention for Families Providing Home-Based Care to a Person With Advanced Chronic Illness: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial
A study testing Person-centered care intervention in people with Chronic Illness and Caregivers, run by Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de Navarra at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if a Person-Centred Care (PCC) intervention can improve the caregiving experience and wellbeing of families who provide home care for a loved one with advanced chronic illness. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Chronic Illness, Caregivers
- What is being tested?
- Person-centered care intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2025to 30 Jun 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Inclusion Criteria for the Person with Advanced Chronic Illness:
- Diagnosis of an advanced chronic disease, such as chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class IV), renal failure (stages 4-5), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (grades 4-5 on the MRC scale), or liver failure.
- Not currently receiving care from a specialized palliative care team.
- Habitual residence in their own home or that of a family member, without requiring permanent hospitalization.
- Inclusion Criteria for the Family Caregiving Unit:
- Actively providing care at home to an adult with advanced illness at the time of the study.
Show all 15Show fewer
- A minimum of two months must have elapsed since the initiation of family caregiving for the person with advanced chronic illness at home.
- At least two or more adult family members of the person with advanced illness must participate in the study.
- Inclusion Criteria for Individual Caregivers
- Recognized as a caregiver by the person with advanced chronic illness.
- Aware of the advanced illness diagnosis of the care recipient.
- Aged 18 years or older.
- Able to communicate in Spanish.
- Having the physical and mental capacity to participate in the interview.
- Willing and able to provide written informed consent to participate in the study.
Who cannot join
- Life expectancy of less than one year
- Families experiencing an acute crisis situation (e.g., recent bereavement, severe family conflict).
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Spain1 site
Universidad de Navarra, Facultad de Enfermería
Pamplona, Navarre, 31008
Jesús Martín, (+34) 948 425600 ext. 806611, jmartinm@unav.es
About this study
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if a Person-Centred Care (PCC) intervention can improve the caregiving experience and wellbeing of families who provide home care for a loved one with advanced chronic illness. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Does the PCC intervention improve families' caregiving experience, preparedness for caregiving, and psychological wellbeing?
- Is the PCC intervention feasible and acceptable for implementation in primary care settings?
Read more
Researchers will compare families who receive the PCC intervention in addition to usual care to families who receive usual care alone.
Participants will:
- Take part in an initial in-person consultation with a primary care nurse to share their family caregiving experience and co-create a personalized health plan.
- Have monthly follow-up contacts with the same nurse over a 3-month period to update and adapt the plan.
- Receive a copy of the updated plan after each contact to guide caregiving and support decision-making.
Read the detailed description
BACKGROUND:
More than 4.4 million decedents in Europe experience serious health-related suffering and require palliative care, a number projected to grow globally (Arias-Casais et al., 2019). Although hospital deaths still predominate, deaths at home are steadily increasing (Morris et al., 2015). Importantly, many hospital deaths occur contrary to patients' preferences, as most people would prefer to die at home supported by family (Ali et al., 2019; Gomes et al., 2013; Higginson et al., 2017). In parallel, home-based end-of-life care has expanded in recent years (Arias-Casais et al., 2020; Kjellstadli et al., 2018; Nilsson et al., 2017).
The feasibility of remaining at home near the end of life depends largely on families' capacity to assume caregiving responsibilities (Dowd et al., 2023; Martín-Martín et al., 2022). Family members typically provide most physical and emotional care, symptom management, and service coordination, effectively becoming the backbone of home end-of-life care and delivering ~80% of care for patients with advanced illness at home (Zavagli et al., 2019; Stajduhar, 2013; Martín-Martín et al., 2016; Morris et al., 2015). While home care can foster autonomy, freedom, and meaning (Collier et al., 2015; Akpan-Idiok \& Anarado, 2014), it also imposes substantial physical, psychological, and emotional strain on families, who frequently feel unprepared and lack confidence for these roles (Martín-Martín et al., 2016; Mason \& Hodgkin, 2019; Soroka et al., 2018).
Health professionals play a crucial role in enabling families to provide sustainable home care in line with preferences for place of care and death (Ewing et al., 2018; Hardy, 2018). Yet family-centred practice often remains aspirational: many services still focus primarily on the patient, and professionals may be unsure how to engage families effectively (Ellington et al., 2018; Lees et al., 2014). Moreover, most research to date has emphasized the individual "primary caregiver," overlooking the broader family unit despite evidence that advanced illness constitutes a family-level crisis requiring collective adjustment during dying and into bereavement (Steele \& Davies, 2015; Martín-Martín et al., 2022, 2025; Mehta et al., 2009).
Person-Centred Care (PCC) offers a coherent response. Major organizations-including WHO and the National Academy of Medicine-call for systems that centre the person (and family) rather than the disease (OMS, 2017; Pronovost et al., 2018). Spanish and regional initiatives have similarly promoted person- and family-centred practice and humanization of care (Asociación Profesional de Enfermeras de Ontario, 2015; Departamento de Salud, 2018). PCC, particularly the University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC) model, organizes care around narratives, shared goals, partnership, and co-creation of a health plan (Ekman et al., 2011; Britten et al., 2020). This approach reframes families as active partners with resources and capabilities, enhancing self-efficacy and participation in decision-making and care planning (Dewing et al., 2021; Barr \& Tsai, 2021). Prior frameworks emphasize relational processes and contexts (McCormack \& McCance, 2006; Leplège et al., 2007).
Evidence across conditions and settings indicates that PCC can improve self-efficacy, reduce uncertainty and fatigue, shorten hospital stays, lower costs and readmissions, and increase adherence and satisfaction-with signals of cost-effectiveness relative to usual care (Ekman et al., 2012; Dudas et al., 2013; Fors et al., 2017, 2018a; Wallström et al., 2020; Hansson et al., 2016; Sahlen et al., 2016; Brännström \& Boman, 2014; Markgren et al., 2019; van Diepen et al., 2020; Leask et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024). In advanced illness at home, aligning care with needs and expectations has been associated with improved experiences and outcomes (Ekman et al., 2011; Brännström \& Boman, 2014). However, rigorously designed interventions explicitly targeting family units at the end of life remain scarce.
Against this backdrop, the HELP-F project co-designed a PCC intervention tailored to families caring for a loved one with advanced non-oncologic chronic disease at home. A systematic review informed preliminary design, which was then refined via co-design with researchers, primary care professionals, and family caregivers to ensure contextual fit and acceptability (Skivington et al., 2024; Webb et al., 2019).
OBJECTIVES:
General objective: Co-design and pilot a PCC intervention to improve the caregiving experience of families providing home care to a loved one near the end of life, and evaluate feasibility and acceptability of implementation in routine primary care (Asociación Profesional de Enfermeras de Ontario, 2015; Ekman et al., 2011; Britten et al., 2020).
Specific objectives: (1) Co-design the PCC intervention drawing on current evidence and collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and families (Skivington et al., 2024; Webb et al., 2019); (2) Train and assess nurses' PCC competencies as leaders of the intervention (Carvajal-Valcárcel et al., 2024); (3) Explore feasibility and acceptability of implementation from the perspective of intervention nurses to inform a future large-scale RCT (Leask et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024).
DESIGN:
Pilot, open-label, multicentre, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a superiority framework and intention-to-treat comparison (Christensen, 2007; Shah, 2011). Given the risk of contamination, randomization occurs at the cluster (primary care centre) level. The study follows Medical Research Council guidance for development and evaluation of complex interventions; the intervention is considered complex due to multiple interacting components, required skills, heterogeneity of contexts, and the need for flexible tailoring (Skivington et al., 2021, 2024).
SETTING:
Primary Care centres within the public network of the Pamplona health area (Navarra, Spain).
PARTICIPANTS AND RECRUITMENT:
Investigator nurses at participating centres will screen primary care records to identify patient-family units receiving home-based care for advanced chronic disease. Patients will be approached during routine clinic or home visits (or by telephone) to confirm caregiver identification and interest; caregivers will then be contacted, provided study information, and invited to participate. Consent will be obtained prior to any study-related procedures. Cluster allocation (centre = intervention vs control) will be determined before enrolment to guide site-level implementation and minimize cross-arm contamination (Webb et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024).
CO-DESIGN OF IMPLEMENTATION A preliminary logic model, derived from the literature and early design work, was iteratively refined through a stakeholder co-design process-including researchers, Navarra primary care professionals, and family caregivers-following best practice to optimize contextual fit, feasibility, and acceptability (Webb et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024). Inputs from this process informed practical delivery details (roles, workflows, materials) and anticipated barriers/facilitators within routine primary care.
INTERVENTION Overview and team. The intervention adapts the GPCC PCC model for family units in home end-of-life care (Britten et al., 2020; Ekman et al., 2011). It is led by primary care nurses with support, when indicated, from medicine, social work, and psychology, all operating within a PCC framework (McCormack \& McCance, 2006; Leplège et al., 2007).
Preparation and training. Prior to implementation, intervention nurses will complete a 12-hour, in-person training covering PCC principles (GPCC), person-centred communication, motivational/coaching strategies, and the impact of advanced illness on patients, families, and communities. Interactive, practice-oriented methods will be used. During the pilot, monthly micro-refreshers ("training pills") will be emailed to reinforce fidelity. PCC competence will be assessed pre- and post-pilot using the Spanish PCPI-S (Carvajal-Valcárcel et al., 2024).
Core PCC components: (a) Partnership establishment: Nurse and family (and patient, where appropriate) engage as co-experts-family in lived experience; nurse in disciplinary knowledge (Ekman et al., 2011); (b) Narrative elicitation: Using open questions, reflections, and summaries, the nurse facilitates a family narrative about everyday life, caregiving challenges, resources, and priorities (Ekman et al., 2011; Fors et al., 2018b); (c) Co-creation of a personalized health plan: Together they document key topics, short- and long-term goals, concrete actions (what/how/when), internal/external resources, and needed supports (who/how/when). Where relevant, the nurse coordinates with medicine, social work, and psychology to align inputs (Britten et al., 2020; Dewing et al., 2021; Barr \& Tsai, 2021).
Contact structure and documentation. An initial in-person consultation initiates the partnership, narrative, and plan; subsequent monthly contacts with the same nurse review and refine the plan, which is shared with families in print or via email to strengthen commitment and continuity (Ekman et al., 2011; Fors et al., 2018b).
FEASIBILITY AND ACCEPTABILITY EVALUATION After the pilot, a structured focus group with intervention nurses-facilitated by the doctoral researcher and a thesis supervisor-will explore implementation feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, contextual barriers/facilitators, strengths, and improvement opportunities, using a predefined guide and qualitative content analysis to inform refinements for a future definitive trial (Leask et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024; Elo \& Kyngäs, 2008).
- Conditions
- Chronic Illness, Caregivers
- Being tested
- Person-centered care intervention
- Keywords
- Person-centredness, RCT, Partnership, Health plan, Person-centred care, Person-centered care, Patient-centered care, Home care, In-home care, Home-based care, Community home care, Carers, Family caregivers, Informal caregivers, Care providers
- Medical subject headings
- Chronic Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Person-centered care interventionBehavioural
Also called PCC
The intervention will be delivered by primary care nurses, in coordination with doctors, social workers, and psychologists from each center. Nurses, previously trained in person-centred care, will collect the family narrative regarding their experiences, needs, goals, and available resources. Based on this, a health plan will be co-created with the family, incorporating short- and long-term objectives, concrete actions, and the supports required. The plan will be reviewed and adapted in monthly follow-up consultations during a three-month period.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | Participants allocated to the control group will not receive any additional intervention. They will continue to receive the standard care provided in primary care for the management of patients with advanced chronic conditions, according to routine clinical practice and regional healthcare guidelines. |
| Intervention group | Experimental | The Person-Centred Care intervention will be delivered for 3 months on top of usual care. Receives: Behavioral: Person-centered care intervention |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on the caregiving experience of family caregivers.
The Spanish version of the Scale for End-of-Life Caregiving Appraisal (SEOLCAS) (Hernández-Padilla et al., 2019) will be used. This instrument comprehensively assesses caregivers' experience at the end of life across four domains: physical suffering, caregiving burden, positive appraisal of caregiving, and social support seeking. It comprises 14 items, with total scores categorized as: "low impact" (0-17 points), "moderate impact" (18-40 points), and "high impact" (41-56 points). The Spanish adaptation has demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.92).
Measured: Baseline, 3, 9 months
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on caregivers' preparedness to provide care.
The Spanish version of the Caregiver Preparedness Scale (CPS) (Gutierrez-Baena \& Romero-Grimaldi, 2021) will be employed. It consists of 8 items evaluating the preparedness of caregivers of vulnerable older adults living at home. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all prepared) to 4 (very well prepared), with a total score ranging from 0 to 32; higher scores indicate greater preparedness. The CPS has shown good internal consistency (α = 0.89).
Measured: Baseline, 3, 9 months
Secondary outcomes (3)
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on caregivers' levels of anxiety and depression.
The Spanish version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (Terol-Cantero et al., 2015) will be used. The instrument consists of 14 items with two subscales: anxiety and depression. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater severity. Total scores are categorized as: "normal" (0-7), "borderline" (8-10), and "clinical problem" (>11). The Spanish adaptation has been validated in several populations (Costa-Requena et al., 2009; Vallejo et al., 2012), demonstrating good internal consistency (α = 0.83 for anxiety, α = 0.87 for depression) and sensitivity (0.74-0.84) and specificity (0.78-0.80) ranges (Galindo-Vázquez et al., 2015).
Measured: Baseline, 3, 9 months
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on the perceived burden of family caregivers.
The Spanish version of the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) (Martín et al., 1996; Odriozola-Gojenola et al., 2008) will be used. This multidimensional questionnaire (physical, emotional-psychological, social, and economic) consists of 22 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 = "never" to 5 = "almost always." The total score ranges from 22 to 110, classified as: "no burden" (≤46), "mild burden" (47-55), or "severe burden" (≥56). The ZBI has demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.92), sensitivity of 98.5%, and specificity of 93.9% (Gort et al., 2005).
Measured: Baseline, 3, 9 months
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on the quality of life of family caregivers.
The Spanish version of the Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12) (Alonso et al., 1995; Vilagut et al., 2013) will be used. This instrument comprises 12 items assessing both positive and negative health states across the following domains: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health. Vilagut et al. (2005) reported adequate consistency, with α > 0.9 for the subscales of physical functioning, role physical, and role emotional, and α = 0.7 for the remaining subscales.
Measured: Baseline, 3, 9 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Sep 2025
- Study start1 Oct 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion30 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Jun 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (29)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Chronic IllnessStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Family caregivers of patients with advanced chronic illness who meet the inclusion criteria and provide informed consent will be randomized. Randomization will be conducted at the primary care center level by research nurses, following a computer-generated sequence, with a 1:1 allocation. Centers will be assigned to either the control or intervention group. The control group will receive usual care, while the intervention group will receive a three-month person- and family-centered care intervention, in addition to usual care.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de Navarra
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Navarra, Navarre Health Research Institute (IdiSNA), Spain, Göteborg University, Government of Navarra
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Jesús Martin, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de Navarra
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07184216
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HELP-F Study
- Acronym
- HELP-F
- Status last verified
- Sep 2025
- First submitted
- 13 Sep 2025
- Last updated
- 19 Sep 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Webb, R., Rissik, D., Petheram, L., Beh, J. L., & Stafford Smith, M. (2019). Co-designing adaptation decision support: meeting common and differentiated needs. Climatic Change, 153(4), 569-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2165-7
Van Bulck L, Wampers M, Moons P. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap): tackling data collection, management, storage, and privacy challenges. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2022 Jan 11;21(1):85-91. doi: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab104.
PubMed 34741600Stajduhar KI. Burdens of family caregiving at the end of life. Clin Invest Med. 2013 Jun 1;36(3):E121-6. doi: 10.25011/cim.v36i3.19722.
PubMed 23739665Soroka JT, Froggatt K, Morris S. Family Caregivers' Confidence Caring for Relatives in Hospice Care at Home: An Exploratory Qualitative Study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018 Dec;35(12):1540-1546. doi: 10.1177/1049909118787779. Epub 2018 Jul 11.
PubMed 29996659Shah PB. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. CMAJ. 2011 Apr 5;183(6):696; author reply 696. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.111-2033. No abstract available.
PubMed 21464181Sahlen KG, Boman K, Brannstrom M. A cost-effectiveness study of person-centered integrated heart failure and palliative home care: Based on a randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2016 Mar;30(3):296-302. doi: 10.1177/0269216315618544. Epub 2015 Nov 24.
PubMed 26603186National Academy of Medicine; The Learning Health System Series; Wang YC, Zenooz A, Sriram RD, Samitt C, Karney M, Johnson W, Goldman J, Gettinger A, Fridsma DB, Bono RC, Palmer S, Johns MME, Pronovost P, editors. Procuring Interoperability: Achieving High-Quality, Connected, and Person-Centered Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2018. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594851/
PubMed 37733889Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2017). Más sano, más justo, más seguro: la travesía de la salud mundial 2007-2017. Health Journey, 76.
Nilsson J, Blomberg C, Holgersson G, Carlsson T, Bergqvist M, Bergstrom S. End-of-life care: Where do cancer patients want to die? A systematic review. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec;13(6):356-364. doi: 10.1111/ajco.12678. Epub 2017 Mar 13.
PubMed 28294576Morris SM, King C, Turner M, Payne S. Family carers providing support to a person dying in the home setting: A narrative literature review. Palliat Med. 2015 Jun;29(6):487-95. doi: 10.1177/0269216314565706. Epub 2015 Jan 29.
PubMed 25634635Martin-Martin J, Perez-Diez-Del-Corral M, Olano-Lizarraga M, Valencia-Gil S, Saracibar-Razquin MI. Family Narratives About Providing End-of-Life Care at Home. J Fam Nurs. 2022 Feb;28(1):17-30. doi: 10.1177/10748407211025579. Epub 2021 Jun 24.
PubMed 34165346Markgren R, Brannstrom M, Lundgren C, Boman K. Impacts of person-centred integrated chronic heart failure and palliative home care on pharmacological heart failure treatment: a substudy of a randomised trial. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2019 Mar;9(1):e10. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2015-000894. Epub 2016 Jan 20.
PubMed 26792391Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Altenburg TM, Cardon G, Chinapaw MJM, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Verloigne M, Chastin SFM; GrandStand, Safe Step and Teenage Girls on the Move Research Groups. Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions. Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Jan 9;5:2. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0136-9. eCollection 2019.
PubMed 30652027Higginson IJ, Daveson BA, Morrison RS, Yi D, Meier D, Smith M, Ryan K, McQuillan R, Johnston BM, Normand C; BuildCARE. Social and clinical determinants of preferences and their achievement at the end of life: prospective cohort study of older adults receiving palliative care in three countries. BMC Geriatr. 2017 Nov 23;17(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0648-4.
PubMed 29169346Hansson E, Ekman I, Swedberg K, Wolf A, Dudas K, Ehlers L, Olsson LE. Person-centred care for patients with chronic heart failure - a cost-utility analysis. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016 Jun;15(4):276-84. doi: 10.1177/1474515114567035. Epub 2015 Jan 16.
PubMed 25595358
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Sep 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effect of a Person-Centred Care Intervention for Families Providing Home-Based Care to a Person With Advanced Chronic Illness: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07184216
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HELP-F / HELP-F Study
- Conditions
- Chronic Illness, Caregivers
- Keywords
- Person-centredness, RCT, Partnership, Health plan, Person-centred care, Person-centered care, Patient-centered care, Home care
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de NavarraUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Navarra, Navarre Health Research Institute (IdiSNA), Spain, Göteborg University, Government of Navarra
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 19 Sep 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if a Person-Centred Care (PCC) intervention can improve the caregiving experience and wellbeing of families who provide home care for a loved one with advanced chronic illness. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Does the PCC intervention improve families' caregiving experience, preparedness for caregiving, and psychological wellbeing?
- Is the PCC intervention feasible and acceptable for implementation in primary care settings?
Researchers will compare families who receive the PCC intervention in addition to usual care to families who receive usual care alone.
Participants will:
- Take part in an initial in-person consultation with a primary care nurse to share their family caregiving experience and co-create a personalized health plan.
- Have monthly follow-up contacts with the same nurse over a 3-month period to update and adapt the plan.
- Receive a copy of the updated plan after each contact to guide caregiving and support decision-making.
Detailed description
BACKGROUND:
More than 4.4 million decedents in Europe experience serious health-related suffering and require palliative care, a number projected to grow globally (Arias-Casais et al., 2019). Although hospital deaths still predominate, deaths at home are steadily increasing (Morris et al., 2015). Importantly, many hospital deaths occur contrary to patients' preferences, as most people would prefer to die at home supported by family (Ali et al., 2019; Gomes et al., 2013; Higginson et al., 2017). In parallel, home-based end-of-life care has expanded in recent years (Arias-Casais et al., 2020; Kjellstadli et al., 2018; Nilsson et al., 2017).
The feasibility of remaining at home near the end of life depends largely on families' capacity to assume caregiving responsibilities (Dowd et al., 2023; Martín-Martín et al., 2022). Family members typically provide most physical and emotional care, symptom management, and service coordination, effectively becoming the backbone of home end-of-life care and delivering ~80% of care for patients with advanced illness at home (Zavagli et al., 2019; Stajduhar, 2013; Martín-Martín et al., 2016; Morris et al., 2015). While home care can foster autonomy, freedom, and meaning (Collier et al., 2015; Akpan-Idiok \& Anarado, 2014), it also imposes substantial physical, psychological, and emotional strain on families, who frequently feel unprepared and lack confidence for these roles (Martín-Martín et al., 2016; Mason \& Hodgkin, 2019; Soroka et al., 2018).
Health professionals play a crucial role in enabling families to provide sustainable home care in line with preferences for place of care and death (Ewing et al., 2018; Hardy, 2018). Yet family-centred practice often remains aspirational: many services still focus primarily on the patient, and professionals may be unsure how to engage families effectively (Ellington et al., 2018; Lees et al., 2014). Moreover, most research to date has emphasized the individual "primary caregiver," overlooking the broader family unit despite evidence that advanced illness constitutes a family-level crisis requiring collective adjustment during dying and into bereavement (Steele \& Davies, 2015; Martín-Martín et al., 2022, 2025; Mehta et al., 2009).
Person-Centred Care (PCC) offers a coherent response. Major organizations-including WHO and the National Academy of Medicine-call for systems that centre the person (and family) rather than the disease (OMS, 2017; Pronovost et al., 2018). Spanish and regional initiatives have similarly promoted person- and family-centred practice and humanization of care (Asociación Profesional de Enfermeras de Ontario, 2015; Departamento de Salud, 2018). PCC, particularly the University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC) model, organizes care around narratives, shared goals, partnership, and co-creation of a health plan (Ekman et al., 2011; Britten et al., 2020). This approach reframes families as active partners with resources and capabilities, enhancing self-efficacy and participation in decision-making and care planning (Dewing et al., 2021; Barr \& Tsai, 2021). Prior frameworks emphasize relational processes and contexts (McCormack \& McCance, 2006; Leplège et al., 2007).
Evidence across conditions and settings indicates that PCC can improve self-efficacy, reduce uncertainty and fatigue, shorten hospital stays, lower costs and readmissions, and increase adherence and satisfaction-with signals of cost-effectiveness relative to usual care (Ekman et al., 2012; Dudas et al., 2013; Fors et al., 2017, 2018a; Wallström et al., 2020; Hansson et al., 2016; Sahlen et al., 2016; Brännström \& Boman, 2014; Markgren et al., 2019; van Diepen et al., 2020; Leask et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024). In advanced illness at home, aligning care with needs and expectations has been associated with improved experiences and outcomes (Ekman et al., 2011; Brännström \& Boman, 2014). However, rigorously designed interventions explicitly targeting family units at the end of life remain scarce.
Against this backdrop, the HELP-F project co-designed a PCC intervention tailored to families caring for a loved one with advanced non-oncologic chronic disease at home. A systematic review informed preliminary design, which was then refined via co-design with researchers, primary care professionals, and family caregivers to ensure contextual fit and acceptability (Skivington et al., 2024; Webb et al., 2019).
OBJECTIVES:
General objective: Co-design and pilot a PCC intervention to improve the caregiving experience of families providing home care to a loved one near the end of life, and evaluate feasibility and acceptability of implementation in routine primary care (Asociación Profesional de Enfermeras de Ontario, 2015; Ekman et al., 2011; Britten et al., 2020).
Specific objectives: (1) Co-design the PCC intervention drawing on current evidence and collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and families (Skivington et al., 2024; Webb et al., 2019); (2) Train and assess nurses' PCC competencies as leaders of the intervention (Carvajal-Valcárcel et al., 2024); (3) Explore feasibility and acceptability of implementation from the perspective of intervention nurses to inform a future large-scale RCT (Leask et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024).
DESIGN:
Pilot, open-label, multicentre, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a superiority framework and intention-to-treat comparison (Christensen, 2007; Shah, 2011). Given the risk of contamination, randomization occurs at the cluster (primary care centre) level. The study follows Medical Research Council guidance for development and evaluation of complex interventions; the intervention is considered complex due to multiple interacting components, required skills, heterogeneity of contexts, and the need for flexible tailoring (Skivington et al., 2021, 2024).
SETTING:
Primary Care centres within the public network of the Pamplona health area (Navarra, Spain).
PARTICIPANTS AND RECRUITMENT:
Investigator nurses at participating centres will screen primary care records to identify patient-family units receiving home-based care for advanced chronic disease. Patients will be approached during routine clinic or home visits (or by telephone) to confirm caregiver identification and interest; caregivers will then be contacted, provided study information, and invited to participate. Consent will be obtained prior to any study-related procedures. Cluster allocation (centre = intervention vs control) will be determined before enrolment to guide site-level implementation and minimize cross-arm contamination (Webb et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024).
CO-DESIGN OF IMPLEMENTATION A preliminary logic model, derived from the literature and early design work, was iteratively refined through a stakeholder co-design process-including researchers, Navarra primary care professionals, and family caregivers-following best practice to optimize contextual fit, feasibility, and acceptability (Webb et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024). Inputs from this process informed practical delivery details (roles, workflows, materials) and anticipated barriers/facilitators within routine primary care.
INTERVENTION Overview and team. The intervention adapts the GPCC PCC model for family units in home end-of-life care (Britten et al., 2020; Ekman et al., 2011). It is led by primary care nurses with support, when indicated, from medicine, social work, and psychology, all operating within a PCC framework (McCormack \& McCance, 2006; Leplège et al., 2007).
Preparation and training. Prior to implementation, intervention nurses will complete a 12-hour, in-person training covering PCC principles (GPCC), person-centred communication, motivational/coaching strategies, and the impact of advanced illness on patients, families, and communities. Interactive, practice-oriented methods will be used. During the pilot, monthly micro-refreshers ("training pills") will be emailed to reinforce fidelity. PCC competence will be assessed pre- and post-pilot using the Spanish PCPI-S (Carvajal-Valcárcel et al., 2024).
Core PCC components: (a) Partnership establishment: Nurse and family (and patient, where appropriate) engage as co-experts-family in lived experience; nurse in disciplinary knowledge (Ekman et al., 2011); (b) Narrative elicitation: Using open questions, reflections, and summaries, the nurse facilitates a family narrative about everyday life, caregiving challenges, resources, and priorities (Ekman et al., 2011; Fors et al., 2018b); (c) Co-creation of a personalized health plan: Together they document key topics, short- and long-term goals, concrete actions (what/how/when), internal/external resources, and needed supports (who/how/when). Where relevant, the nurse coordinates with medicine, social work, and psychology to align inputs (Britten et al., 2020; Dewing et al., 2021; Barr \& Tsai, 2021).
Contact structure and documentation. An initial in-person consultation initiates the partnership, narrative, and plan; subsequent monthly contacts with the same nurse review and refine the plan, which is shared with families in print or via email to strengthen commitment and continuity (Ekman et al., 2011; Fors et al., 2018b).
FEASIBILITY AND ACCEPTABILITY EVALUATION After the pilot, a structured focus group with intervention nurses-facilitated by the doctoral researcher and a thesis supervisor-will explore implementation feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, contextual barriers/facilitators, strengths, and improvement opportunities, using a predefined guide and qualitative content analysis to inform refinements for a future definitive trial (Leask et al., 2019; Skivington et al., 2024; Elo \& Kyngäs, 2008).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Family caregivers of patients with advanced chronic illness who meet the inclusion criteria and provide informed consent will be randomized. Randomization will be conducted at the primary care center level by research nurses, following a computer-generated sequence, with a 1:1 allocation. Centers will be assigned to either the control or intervention group. The control group will receive usual care, while the intervention group will receive a three-month person- and family-centered care intervention, in addition to usual care.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | –Participants allocated to the control group will not receive any additional intervention. They will continue to receive the standard care provided in primary care for the management of patients with advanced chronic conditions, according to routine clinical practice and regional healthcare guidelines. |
| Intervention group | Experimental | Behavioral: Person-centered care interventionThe Person-Centred Care intervention will be delivered for 3 months on top of usual care. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (15 listed)
- Inclusion Criteria for the Person with Advanced Chronic Illness:
- Inclusion Criteria for the Family Caregiving Unit:
- Inclusion Criteria for Individual Caregivers
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Life expectancy of less than one year
- Families experiencing an acute crisis situation (e.g., recent bereavement, severe family conflict).
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Person-centered care interventionAlso: PCCThe intervention will be delivered by primary care nurses, in coordination with doctors, social workers, and psychologists from each center. Nurses, previously trained in person-centred care, will collect the family narrative regarding their experiences, needs, goals, and available resources. Based on this, a health plan will be co-created with the family, incorporating short- and long-term objectives, concrete actions, and the supports required. The plan will be reviewed and adapted in monthly follow-up consultations during a three-month period. | Behavioural | Intervention group |
Primary outcome
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on the caregiving experience of family caregivers.
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 9 months
The Spanish version of the Scale for End-of-Life Caregiving Appraisal (SEOLCAS) (Hernández-Padilla et al., 2019) will be used. This instrument comprehensively assesses caregivers' experience at the end of life across four domains: physical suffering, caregiving burden, positive appraisal of caregiving, and social support seeking. It comprises 14 items, with total scores categorized as: "low impact" (0-17 points), "moderate impact" (18-40 points), and "high impact" (41-56 points). The Spanish adaptation has demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.92).
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on caregivers' preparedness to provide care.
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 9 months
The Spanish version of the Caregiver Preparedness Scale (CPS) (Gutierrez-Baena \& Romero-Grimaldi, 2021) will be employed. It consists of 8 items evaluating the preparedness of caregivers of vulnerable older adults living at home. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all prepared) to 4 (very well prepared), with a total score ranging from 0 to 32; higher scores indicate greater preparedness. The CPS has shown good internal consistency (α = 0.89).
3 secondary outcomes
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on caregivers' levels of anxiety and depression.
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 9 months
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on the perceived burden of family caregivers.
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 9 months
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on the quality of life of family caregivers.
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 9 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Sep 2025.
- BackgroundWebb, R., Rissik, D., Petheram, L., Beh, J. L., & Stafford Smith, M. (2019). Co-designing adaptation decision support: meeting common and differentiated needs. Climatic Change, 153(4), 569-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2165-7
- Background: PubMed 34741600Van Bulck L, Wampers M, Moons P. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap): tackling data collection, management, storage, and privacy challenges. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2022 Jan 11;21(1):85-91. doi: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab104.
- Background: PubMed 23739665Stajduhar KI. Burdens of family caregiving at the end of life. Clin Invest Med. 2013 Jun 1;36(3):E121-6. doi: 10.25011/cim.v36i3.19722.
- Background: PubMed 29996659Soroka JT, Froggatt K, Morris S. Family Caregivers' Confidence Caring for Relatives in Hospice Care at Home: An Exploratory Qualitative Study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018 Dec;35(12):1540-1546. doi: 10.1177/1049909118787779. Epub 2018 Jul 11.
- Background: PubMed 21464181Shah PB. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. CMAJ. 2011 Apr 5;183(6):696; author reply 696. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.111-2033. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 26603186Sahlen KG, Boman K, Brannstrom M. A cost-effectiveness study of person-centered integrated heart failure and palliative home care: Based on a randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2016 Mar;30(3):296-302. doi: 10.1177/0269216315618544. Epub 2015 Nov 24.
- Background: PubMed 37733889National Academy of Medicine; The Learning Health System Series; Wang YC, Zenooz A, Sriram RD, Samitt C, Karney M, Johnson W, Goldman J, Gettinger A, Fridsma DB, Bono RC, Palmer S, Johns MME, Pronovost P, editors. Procuring Interoperability: Achieving High-Quality, Connected, and Person-Centered Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2018. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594851/
- BackgroundOrganización Mundial de la Salud. (2017). Más sano, más justo, más seguro: la travesía de la salud mundial 2007-2017. Health Journey, 76.
- Background: PubMed 28294576Nilsson J, Blomberg C, Holgersson G, Carlsson T, Bergqvist M, Bergstrom S. End-of-life care: Where do cancer patients want to die? A systematic review. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec;13(6):356-364. doi: 10.1111/ajco.12678. Epub 2017 Mar 13.
- Background: PubMed 25634635Morris SM, King C, Turner M, Payne S. Family carers providing support to a person dying in the home setting: A narrative literature review. Palliat Med. 2015 Jun;29(6):487-95. doi: 10.1177/0269216314565706. Epub 2015 Jan 29.
- Background: PubMed 34165346Martin-Martin J, Perez-Diez-Del-Corral M, Olano-Lizarraga M, Valencia-Gil S, Saracibar-Razquin MI. Family Narratives About Providing End-of-Life Care at Home. J Fam Nurs. 2022 Feb;28(1):17-30. doi: 10.1177/10748407211025579. Epub 2021 Jun 24.
- Background: PubMed 26792391Markgren R, Brannstrom M, Lundgren C, Boman K. Impacts of person-centred integrated chronic heart failure and palliative home care on pharmacological heart failure treatment: a substudy of a randomised trial. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2019 Mar;9(1):e10. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2015-000894. Epub 2016 Jan 20.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Chronic Illness
RecruitingPhase 2
Tafasitamab With Acalabrutinib and Venetoclax for the Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Safety and Efficacy of Empagliflozin in Hemodialysis
End Stage Renal Disease
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Phase I Open-Label Safety Trial of Pembrolizumab for Neurological Post- Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PD1-PASC I)
Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
RecruitingPhase 3
Study to Assess the Efficacy, Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Tolerability of Atrasentan in Pediatric Patients With Primary IgAN
Berger Disease, Bergers Disease
Active, not recruiting
Symptoms and Functions in Patients With COPD and Chronic Bronchitis Switching From CIG to THS
COPD, Smoking
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Person-centered care intervention in people with Chronic Illness and Caregivers, run by Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de Navarra at 1 site in Spain.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 15 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Sep 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Jesús Martín ((+34) 948 425600 ext. 806611, jmartinm@unav.es), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Evaluate the effect of a PCC intervention on the caregiving experience of family caregivers. (time frame: Baseline, 3, 9 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07184216, which also lists 29 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Sep 2025.