scholarly journals Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mala Mann ◽  
Amanda Woodward ◽  
Annmarie Nelson ◽  
Anthony Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Support Service ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Skill Sets ◽  
Service Redesign ◽  
Evidence Review

AbstractThe importance of linking evidence into practice and policy is recognised as a key pillar of a prudent approach to healthcare; it is of importance to healthcare professionals and decision-makers across the world in every speciality. However, rapid access to evidence to support service redesign, or to change practice at pace, is challenging. This is particularly so in smaller specialties such as Palliative Care, where pressured multidisciplinary clinicians lack time and skill sets to locate and appraise the literature relevant to a particular area. Therefore, we have initiated the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS), a knowledge transfer partnership through which we have developed a clear methodology to conduct evidence reviews to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care.PaCERS methodology utilises modified systematic review methods as there is no agreed definition or an accepted methodology for conducting rapid reviews. This paper describes the stages involved based on our iterative recent experiences and engagement with stakeholders, who are the potential beneficiaries of the research. Uniquely, we emphasise the process and opportunities of engagement with the clinical workforce and policy-makers throughout the review, from developing and refining the review question at the start through to the importance of demonstrating impact. We are faced with the challenge of the trade-off between the timely transfer of evidence against the risk of impacting on rigour. To address this issue, we try to ensure transparency throughout the review process. Our methodology aligns with key principles of knowledge synthesis in defining a process that is transparent, robust and improving the efficiency and timeliness of the review.Our reviews are clinically or policy driven and, although we use modified systematic review methods, one of the key differences between published review processes and our review process is in our relationship with the requester. This streamlining approach to synthesising evidence in a timely manner helps to inform decisions faced by clinicians and decision-makers in healthcare settings, supporting, at pace, knowledge transfer and mobilisation.

scholarly journals Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 245-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Pollock ◽  
Pauline Campbell ◽  
Caroline Struthers ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Jack Nunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Health Decision

Objectives Involvement of patients, health professionals, and the wider public (‘stakeholders’) is seen to be beneficial to the quality, relevance and impact of research and may enhance the usefulness and uptake of systematic reviews. However, there is a lack of evidence and resources to guide researchers in how to actively involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. In this paper, we report the development of the ACTIVE framework to describe how stakeholders are involved in systematic reviews. Methods We developed a framework using methods previously described in the development of conceptual frameworks relating to other areas of public involvement, including: literature searching, data extraction, analysis, and categorization. A draft ACTIVE framework was developed and then refined after presentation at a conference workshop, before being applied to a subset of 32 systematic reviews. Data extracted from these systematic reviews, identified in a systematic scoping review, were categorized against pre-defined constructs, including: who was involved, how stakeholders were recruited, the mode of involvement, at what stage there was involvement and the level of control or influence. Results The final ACTIVE framework described whether patients, carers and/or families, and/or other stakeholders (including health professionals, health decision makers and funders) were involved. We defined: recruitment as either open or closed; the approach to involvement as either one-time, continuous or combined; and the method of involvement as either direct or indirect. The stage of involvement in reviews was defined using the Cochrane Ecosystem stages of a review. The level of control or influence was defined according to the roles and activities of stakeholders in the review process, and described as the ACTIVE continuum of involvement. Conclusions The ACTIVE framework provides a structure with which to describe key components of stakeholder involvement within a systematic review, and we have used this to summarize how stakeholders have been involved in a subset of varied systematic reviews. The ACTIVE continuum of involvement provides a new model that uses tasks and roles to detail the level of stakeholder involvement. This work has contributed to the development of learning resources aimed at supporting systematic review authors and editors to involve stakeholders in their systematic reviews. The ACTIVE framework may support the decision-making of systematic review authors in planning how to involve stakeholders in future reviews.

Description of the sources of stress for palliative-care nurses: Implications for decision makers

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise Fillion ◽  
◽  
Louise Saint-Laurent ◽  
Martine Fortier
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Decision Makers

Non-invasive ventilation in palliative care: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Diaz de Teran ◽  
Elena Barbagelata ◽  
Catia Cilloniz ◽  
Antonello Nicolini ◽  
Tommaso Perazzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

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.

Animal assisted intervention for oncology and palliative care patients: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 101347
Author(s):  
Karina Diniz Pinto ◽  
Claudia Teresa Vieira de Souza ◽  
Maria de Lourdes Benamor Teixeira ◽  
Maria Isabel Fragoso da Silveira Gouvêa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Animal Assisted Intervention

The effectiveness of hope-fostering interventions in palliative care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632199472
Author(s):  
Natalia Salamanca-Balen ◽  
Thomas V Merluzzi ◽  
Man Chen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Spiritual Well Being ◽  
Quasi Experimental

Background: The concept of hope is an important theme in chronic illness and palliative care and has been associated with increased psycho-spiritual well-being and quality of life. Psycho-spiritual interventions have been described in this population, but no systematic review of hope-enhancing interventions or hopelessness-reducing interventions has been conducted for persons with palliative care diseases. Aim: To describe and assess the effectiveness of interventions in palliative care that measure hope and/or hopelessness as an outcome. Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis was pre-registered (Prospero ID: CRD42019119956). Data sources: Electronic databases, journals, and references were searched. We used the Cochrane criteria to assess the risk of bias within studies. Results: Thirty-five studies (24 randomized controlled trials, 5 quasi-experimental, 6 pre-post studies) involving a total of 3296 palliative care patients were included. Compared with usual/standard cancer care alone, interventions significantly increased hope levels at a medium effect size ( g = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.28–0.93) but did not significantly reduce hopelessness ( g = −0.08, 95% CI = −0.18 to 0.02). It was found that interventions significantly increase spirituality ( g = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.02–1.37) and decrease depression ( g = −0.29, 95% CI = −0.51 to −0.07), but had no significant effect over anxiety, quality of life, and symptom burden. Overall, quality of evidence across the included studies was rated as low. Conclusions: Evidence suggests that interventions can be effective in increasing hope in palliative care patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document