Assessing and comparing compassionate communities benefits across cities in diverse cultural contexts: a step toward the identification of the most important ones.

IF 2.7 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Palliative Care and Social Practice Pub Date : 2025-01-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26323524251314899
Valentina González-Jaramillo, Alicia Krikorian, Vilma Tripodoro, Margarita Jorge, Sebastián Orellana, Francy López, Maria Clara Vélez, Tatiana Noguera, Silvina Montilla, Sibylle Felber, Sofía C Zambrano, Steffen Eychmüller
{"title":"Assessing and comparing compassionate communities benefits across cities in diverse cultural contexts: a step toward the identification of the most important ones.","authors":"Valentina González-Jaramillo, Alicia Krikorian, Vilma Tripodoro, Margarita Jorge, Sebastián Orellana, Francy López, Maria Clara Vélez, Tatiana Noguera, Silvina Montilla, Sibylle Felber, Sofía C Zambrano, Steffen Eychmüller","doi":"10.1177/26323524251314899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As Compassionate Communities (CCs) are developing worldwide, there is a growing need to systematically assess if they are having the expected effects on the community. Although having a single strategy would be ideal in terms of standardization and comparison, due to the inherent heterogeneity of CCs, it is not known how feasible this would be.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the feasibility of creating a general strategy, based on the results of a series of focus groups conducted across three diverse CCs, to guide the evaluation of already existing programs and the development of new ones.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Focus groups in three cities, including different types of stakeholders, were conducted to identify potential outcomes (benefits) from CCs, as the base of a general strategy to assess CCs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We coded the discussions and built a list of the outcomes mentioned. Then, we merged those similar enough into a more general one that encompassed the others. We extracted from reviews all the CCs outcomes that have been measured. We merged the outcomes from the focus groups and the reviews and built a single list.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We obtained a final list of 46 outcomes; 44 were reported from the focus groups, and two more were added from the reviews. Of the 44 from the focus groups, 22 (50%) were present in the three CCs, 14(32%) were present in two CCs, and the remaining 8 (18%) were present only in one compassionate community. There were outcomes commonly reported both in the three CCs and in the literature reviews related to training the general community in compassion and end-of-life topics, facilitating the development of community networks, and generating public spaces for social integration.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Half of the identified outcomes were reported in the three CCs. This indicates the feasibility of creating a single strategy but also reflects the need to leave room to include other aspects specific to each community according to its context in the assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":36693,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Care and Social Practice","volume":"19 ","pages":"26323524251314899"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11770713/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Care and Social Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26323524251314899","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: As Compassionate Communities (CCs) are developing worldwide, there is a growing need to systematically assess if they are having the expected effects on the community. Although having a single strategy would be ideal in terms of standardization and comparison, due to the inherent heterogeneity of CCs, it is not known how feasible this would be.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of creating a general strategy, based on the results of a series of focus groups conducted across three diverse CCs, to guide the evaluation of already existing programs and the development of new ones.

Design: Focus groups in three cities, including different types of stakeholders, were conducted to identify potential outcomes (benefits) from CCs, as the base of a general strategy to assess CCs.

Methods: We coded the discussions and built a list of the outcomes mentioned. Then, we merged those similar enough into a more general one that encompassed the others. We extracted from reviews all the CCs outcomes that have been measured. We merged the outcomes from the focus groups and the reviews and built a single list.

Results: We obtained a final list of 46 outcomes; 44 were reported from the focus groups, and two more were added from the reviews. Of the 44 from the focus groups, 22 (50%) were present in the three CCs, 14(32%) were present in two CCs, and the remaining 8 (18%) were present only in one compassionate community. There were outcomes commonly reported both in the three CCs and in the literature reviews related to training the general community in compassion and end-of-life topics, facilitating the development of community networks, and generating public spaces for social integration.

Conclusion: Half of the identified outcomes were reported in the three CCs. This indicates the feasibility of creating a single strategy but also reflects the need to leave room to include other aspects specific to each community according to its context in the assessment.

评估和比较不同文化背景下城市中富有同情心的社区的利益:朝着确定最重要的利益迈出了一步。
背景:随着爱心社区(CCs)在世界范围内的发展,越来越需要系统地评估它们是否对社区产生了预期的影响。虽然从标准化和比较的角度来看,采用单一策略是理想的,但由于CCs的内在异质性,目前尚不清楚这是否可行。目标:根据在三个不同的CCs进行的一系列焦点小组的结果,评估制定总体战略的可行性,以指导对现有项目的评估和新项目的开发。设计:在三个城市进行焦点小组,包括不同类型的利益相关者,以确定cc的潜在结果(收益),作为评估cc的一般策略的基础。方法:对讨论内容进行编码,建立讨论结果列表。然后,我们把那些足够相似的东西合并成一个包含其他东西的更一般的东西。我们从综述中提取了所有已测量的CCs结果。我们合并了焦点小组和评审的结果,并建立了一个单一的列表。结果:我们获得了46个结局的最终列表;焦点小组报告了44个,审查报告又增加了两个。在44个焦点小组中,22个(50%)出现在三个cc中,14个(32%)出现在两个cc中,其余8个(18%)只出现在一个富有同情心的社区中。在三个cc和文献综述中,普遍报道的结果与培训一般社区的同情心和临终主题,促进社区网络的发展,以及为社会融合创造公共空间有关。结论:在三个CCs中报告了一半已确定的结果。这表明制订一项单一战略的可行性,但也反映出需要留出余地,以便根据每个社区的情况在评估中包括其特有的其他方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Palliative Care and Social Practice
Palliative Care and Social Practice Nursing-Advanced and Specialized Nursing
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信