scholarly journals International Palliative Care Research Priorities: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicity Hasson ◽  
Emma Nicholson ◽  
Deborah Muldrew ◽  
Olufikayo Bamidele ◽  
Sheila Payne ◽  
...  

Abstract Background : There has been increasing evidence and debate on palliative care research priorities and the international research agenda. To date, however, there is a lack of synthesis of this evidence, examining commonalities, differences, and gaps. To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities mapped to a quality assessment framework.Methods: A systematic review of several academic and grey databases were searched from January 2008- June 2019 for studies eliciting research priorities in palliative care in English. Two researchers independently reviewed, critically appraised, and conducted data extraction and synthesis.Results: The search yielded 10,325 of which ten were included for appraisal and review.Priority areas were identified: service models; continuity of care; training and education; inequality; communication; living well and independently; and recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas. The priorities were mapped to the Donabedian framework for assessing quality reflecting structure, process and outcomes and key priority areas. Conclusions : Limited evidence exists pertaining to research priorities across palliative care. Whilst a broad range of topics were elicited, approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The voice of the care provider dominated, calling for more inclusive means to capture the patient and family voice. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research, identify gaps, and extend the palliative care research agenda.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicity Hasson ◽  
Emma Nicholson ◽  
Deborah Muldrew ◽  
Olufikayo Bamidele ◽  
Sheila Payne ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: There has been increasing evidence and debate on palliative care research priorities and the international research agenda. To date, however, there is a lack of synthesis of this evidence, examining commonalities, differences, and gaps. To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities originating from Western countries mapped to a quality assessment framework.Methods: A systematic review of several academic and grey databases were searched from January 2008- June 2019 for studies eliciting research priorities in palliative care in English. Two researchers independently reviewed, critically appraised, and conducted data extraction and synthesis.Results: The search yielded 10,235 articles (academic databases, n = 4108; grey literature, n = 6127), of which ten were included for appraisal and review. Priority areas were identified: service models; continuity of care; training and education; inequality; communication; living well and independently; and recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas. The priorities were mapped to the Donabedian framework for assessing quality reflecting structure, process and outcomes and key priority areas.Conclusions: Limited evidence exists pertaining to research priorities across palliative care. Whilst a broad range of topics were elicited, approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The voice of the care provider dominated, calling for more inclusive means to capture the patient and family voice. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research, identify gaps, and extend the palliative care research agenda.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicity Hasson ◽  
Emma Nicholson ◽  
Deborah Muldrew ◽  
Olufikayo Bamidele ◽  
Sheila Payne ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter L. Hudson ◽  
Rachel Zordan ◽  
Tom Trauer

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1055-1077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Lore Scherrens ◽  
Kim Beernaert ◽  
Lenzo Robijn ◽  
Luc Deliens ◽  
Nele S Pauwels ◽  
...  

Background: It is necessary to understand behaviours that contribute to improvement in the quality of end-of-life care; use of behavioural theories allows identification of factors underlying end-of-life care behaviour, but little is known about the extent to which, and in what manner, these theories are used in an end-of-life care research context. Aim: To assess the number of end-of-life care studies that have used behavioural theories, which theories were used, to what extent main constructs were explored/measured and which behavioural outcomes were examined. Design: We conducted a systematic review. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016036009). Data sources: The MEDLINE (PubMed), PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to June 2017. We included studies aimed at understanding or changing end-of-life care behaviours and that explicitly referred to individual behavioural theories. Results: We screened 2231 records by title and abstract, retrieved 43 full-text articles and included 31 studies – 27 quantitative (of which four (quasi-)randomised controlled trials) and four qualitative – for data extraction. More than half used the Theory of Planned Behaviour (9), the Theory of Reasoned Action (4) or the Transtheoretical Model (8). In 9 of 31 studies, the theory was fully used, and 16 of the 31 studies focussed on behaviours in advance care planning. Conclusion: In end-of-life care research, the use of behavioural theories is limited. As many behaviours can determine the quality of care, their more extensive use may be warranted if we want to better understand and influence behaviours and improve end-of-life care.


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 722-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwenda Albers ◽  
Richard Harding ◽  
H Roeline W Pasman ◽  
Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen ◽  
Sue Hall ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 762-772.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Boland ◽  
David C. Currow ◽  
Andrew Wilcock ◽  
Jennifer Tieman ◽  
Jamilla Akhter Hussain ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document