scholarly journals Palliative care utilization in oncology and hemato-oncology: a systematic review of cognitive barriers and facilitators from the perspective of healthcare professionals, adult patients, and their families

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Bennardi ◽  
Nicola Diviani ◽  
Claudia Gamondi ◽  
Georg Stüssi ◽  
Piercarlo Saletti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Care Utilization

A Systematic Review on Barriers to Palliative Care in Oncology

2021 ◽  
pp. 104990912098328
Author(s):  
Jyotsana Parajuli ◽  
Judith E. Hupcey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Meta Analyses

The number of people with cancer and the need for palliative care among this population is increasing in the United States. Despite this growing need, several barriers exist to the utilization of palliative care in oncology. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the barriers to palliative care utilization in an oncology population. A systematic review of literature was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, and Psych Info databases were used for the literature search. Articles were included if they: 1) focused on cancer, (2) examined and discussed barriers to palliative care, and c) were peer reviewed, published in English, and had an accessible full text. A total of 29 studies (8 quantitative, 18 qualitative, and 3 mixed-methods) were identified and synthesized for this review. The sample size of the included studies ranged from 10 participants to 313 participants. The barriers to palliative care were categorized into barriers related to the patient and family, b) barriers related to providers, and c) barriers related to the healthcare system or policy. The factors identified in this review provide guidance for intervention development to mitigate the existing barriers and facilitate the use palliative care in individuals with cancer.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to e-learning in palliative care

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 394-402
Author(s):  
Joanne Callinan
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Administrative Support ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Computer Training ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Course Work ◽  
E Learning ◽  
Prior Experiences

Background: E-learning provides opportunities for flexible learning to those who cannot access palliative education in the traditional classroom setting, but it also presents learners with challenges. The study aims to identify the barriers and facilitators to accessing e-learning courses in palliative care. Methods: Cross-sectional surveys were developed, piloted and disseminated to healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in palliative care on the island of Ireland (Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland). Results: Important factors that motivated HCPs to participate in e-learning are: dedicated time; quick technical and administrative support; computer training before completing an e-learning course; and regular contact with the tutor in online course work. Some 50% indicated face-to-face assistance and hands-on training sessions as the type of support that they would like to receive. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals' prior experiences and attitudes towards e-learning will guide educators developing programmes. This study indicates the prerequisite for organisational supports and practical considerations to facilitate the uptake of e-learning.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical imaging guidelines by healthcare professionals using theoretical domains framework: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

BJR|Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 20210004
Author(s):  
Harriet Nalubega Kisembo ◽  
Ritah Nassanga ◽  
Faith Ameda Ameda ◽  
Moses Ocan ◽  
Alison A Kinengyere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Clinical Imaging

Objectives: To identify, categorize, and develop an aggregated synthesis of evidence using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) on barriers and facilitators that influence implementation of clinical imaging guidelines (CIGs) by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in diagnostic imaging Methods: The protocol will be guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2014. Methodology for JBI Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews and will adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA-P). Information source will include databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library), internet search (https://www.google.com/scholar), experts’ opinion, professional societies/organizations websites and government bodies strategies/recommendations, and reference lists of included studies. Articles of any study design published in English from 1990 to date, having investigated factors operating as barriers and/or facilitators to the implementation CIGs by HCPs will be eligible. Selecting, appraising, and extracting data from the included studies will be independently performed by at least two reviewers using validated tools and Rayyan – Systematic Review web application. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus and a third reviewer as a tie breaker. The aggregated studies will be synthesized using thematic analysis guided by TDF. Results: Identified barriers will be defined a priori and mapped into 7 TDF domains including knowledge, awareness, effectiveness, time, litigationand financial incentives Conclusion: The results will provide an insight into a theory-based approach to predict behavior-related determinants for implementing CIGs and develop strategies/interventions to target the elicited behaviors. Recommendations will be made if the level of evidence is sufficient Advances in knowledge: Resource-constrained settings that are in the process of adopting CIGs may opt for this strategy to predict in advance likely impediments to achieving the goal of CIG implementation and develop tailored interventions during the planning phase. Systematic review Registration: PROSPERO ID = CRD42020136372 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

scholarly journals Tools to help healthcare professionals recognize palliative care needs in patients with advanced heart failure: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921632096394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie MC Ament ◽  
Inge ME Couwenberg ◽  
Josiane JJ Boyne ◽  
Jos Kleijnen ◽  
Henri EJH Stoffers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Care Process ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Process Guidance ◽  
Palliative Care Needs

Background: The delivery of palliative care interventions is not widely integrated in chronic heart failure care as the recognition of palliative care needs is perceived as difficult. Tools may facilitate healthcare professionals to identify patients with palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure. Aim: To identify tools to help healthcare professionals recognize palliative care needs in patients with advanced chronic heart failure. Design: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019131896). Evidence of tools’ development, evaluation, feasibility, and implementation was sought and described. Data sources: Electronic searches to identify references of tools published until June 2019 were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Hand-searching of references and citations was undertaken. Based on the identified tools, a second electronic search until September 2019 was performed to check whether all evidence about these tools in the context of chronic heart failure was included. Results: Nineteen studies described a total of seven tools. The tools varied in purpose, intended user and properties. The tools have been validated to a limited extent in the context of chronic heart failure and palliative care. Different health care professionals applied the tools in various settings at different moments of the care process. Guidance and instruction about how to apply the tool revealed to be relevant but may be not enough for uptake. Spiritual care needs were perceived as difficult to assess. Conclusion: Seven tools were identified which showed different and limited levels of validity in the context of palliative care and chronic heart failure.

Delirium in adult patients receiving palliative care: A systematic review of the literature

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofía Sánchez-Román ◽  
Cristina Beltrán Zavala ◽  
Argelia Lara Solares ◽  
Erwin Chiquete
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Review Of The Literature

Patterns of palliative care utilization and end of life care in adult patients with cancer who died as inpatients at Mayo Clinic.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21681-e21681
Author(s):  
Collin Thomas Zimmerman ◽  
Shivani S. Shinde ◽  
Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi ◽  
Mark Robert Litzow ◽  
Jeanne M. Huddleston
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Life Care ◽  
Patients With Cancer

Healthcare professionals’ experiences and perspectives on using telehealth for home-based palliative care: a scoping review protocol (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elias David Lundereng ◽  
Andrea Aparecida Goncalves Nes ◽  
Heidi Holmen ◽  
Anette Winger ◽  
Hilde Thygesen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Hand Search ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Analysis Protocol

BACKGROUND Telehealth seems feasible for use in home-based palliative care. However, acceptance among healthcare professionals is essential for the successful delivery of telehealth in practice. No scoping review has mapped the experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals on the use of telehealth for home-based palliative care. OBJECTIVE To systematically map published studies on healthcare professionals’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in home-based palliative care. METHODS The proposed scoping review will employ the methodology of Arksey and O’Malley. This protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P). A systematic search was performed in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Web of Science (WoS) for studies published between January 2000 to July 5, 2021. We will also hand search the reference lists of included papers to identify additional studies of relevance. The search will be updated in 2022. Pairs of authors will independently assess eligibility of studies and extract data. The two first stages of thematic synthesis will be used to thematically organize the data material. Since the scoping review methodology consists of reviewing and collecting data from publicly available materials, this study does not require ethics approval. RESULTS The database searches were performed on July 5, 2021 and the eligibility criteria were tested in July-August 2021. After removal of 2364 duplicates, the search yielded 2420 citations.We will screen titles, abstracts and full-text papers by fall 2021. Results are anticipated by September 2022. CONCLUSIONS A mapping of studies could identify research gaps regarding healthcare professionals’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in home-based palliative care and may determine the value and feasibility of conducting a full systematic review.

scholarly journals m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 212-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Pierre Gagnon ◽  
Patrice Ngangue ◽  
Julie Payne-Gagnon ◽  
Marie Desmartis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Health Utilization ◽  
Privacy And Security ◽  
Security Issues

Abstract Objective The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize current knowledge of the factors influencing healthcare professional adoption of mobile health (m-health) applications. Methods Covering a period from 2000 to 2014, we conducted a systematic literature search on four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo). We also consulted references from included studies. We included studies if they reported the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding barriers and facilitators to m-health utilization, if they were published in English, Spanish, or French and if they presented an empirical study design (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). Two authors independently assessed study quality and performed content analysis using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators. Results The search strategy led to a total of 4223 potentially relevant papers, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria. Main perceived adoption factors to m-health at the individual, organizational, and contextual levels were the following: perceived usefulness and ease of use, design and technical concerns, cost, time, privacy and security issues, familiarity with the technology, risk-benefit assessment, and interaction with others (colleagues, patients, and management). Conclusion This systematic review provides a set of key elements making it possible to understand the challenges and opportunities for m-health utilization by healthcare providers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document