Telehealth in palliative care settings: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Leen Krieckemans, Alice Cavolo, Michael Casaer, Chris Gastmans
{"title":"Telehealth in palliative care settings: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature.","authors":"Leen Krieckemans, Alice Cavolo, Michael Casaer, Chris Gastmans","doi":"10.1177/02692163251360115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The need for palliative care is rising rapidly, but meeting global demand is falling behind. Telepalliative care offers a potential solution, though its implementation requires careful ethical evaluation.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To provide an overview of the ethical concepts and arguments related to telepalliative care as presented in the argument-based literature.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of argument-based literature following PRISMA-guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024533732). Data extraction and synthesis followed the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched 12 databases covering medical, ethical, and technological disciplines using broad, unfiltered terms. Publications in English, French, German, or Dutch on telehealth, palliative care, and ethics were considered. Two researchers independently screened publications, using peer review as a quality proxy due to the lack of standards for argument-based literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six publications were included. Two main ethical approaches emerged: one related to the four principles of biomedical ethics and the other to care. Regarding respect for autonomy, telepalliative care may both promote and limit autonomy, with concerns raised about informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality. Regarding beneficence, potential improvements in symptom management and quality of life were identified. Regarding non-maleficence, risks such as replacing in-person care and medicalizing the home environment were highlighted. Regarding justice, issues of access, equity, distributive justice, and environmental issues were addressed. Concerns about the patient-provider relationship and holistic care were central to care-related arguments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Telehealth's benefits challenge its incompatibility with palliative care, however, significant risks threaten core palliative care values. Thus, careful implementation must prioritize ethical considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19849,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"2692163251360115"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163251360115","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The need for palliative care is rising rapidly, but meeting global demand is falling behind. Telepalliative care offers a potential solution, though its implementation requires careful ethical evaluation.

Aim: To provide an overview of the ethical concepts and arguments related to telepalliative care as presented in the argument-based literature.

Design: We conducted a systematic review of argument-based literature following PRISMA-guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024533732). Data extraction and synthesis followed the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.

Data sources: We searched 12 databases covering medical, ethical, and technological disciplines using broad, unfiltered terms. Publications in English, French, German, or Dutch on telehealth, palliative care, and ethics were considered. Two researchers independently screened publications, using peer review as a quality proxy due to the lack of standards for argument-based literature.

Results: Twenty-six publications were included. Two main ethical approaches emerged: one related to the four principles of biomedical ethics and the other to care. Regarding respect for autonomy, telepalliative care may both promote and limit autonomy, with concerns raised about informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality. Regarding beneficence, potential improvements in symptom management and quality of life were identified. Regarding non-maleficence, risks such as replacing in-person care and medicalizing the home environment were highlighted. Regarding justice, issues of access, equity, distributive justice, and environmental issues were addressed. Concerns about the patient-provider relationship and holistic care were central to care-related arguments.

Conclusions: Telehealth's benefits challenge its incompatibility with palliative care, however, significant risks threaten core palliative care values. Thus, careful implementation must prioritize ethical considerations.

在姑息治疗设置远程医疗:基于论证的伦理文献的系统回顾。
背景:对姑息治疗的需求正在迅速增加,但满足全球需求却落后了。临终关怀提供了一个潜在的解决方案,尽管它的实施需要仔细的伦理评估。目的:提供一个概述的伦理概念和有关的论据,以论据为基础的文献提出的远息治疗。设计:我们按照prisma指南(PROSPERO: CRD42024533732)对基于论证的文献进行了系统综述。数据的提取和合成遵循鲁汶定性分析指南。数据来源:我们使用广泛的、未经过滤的术语检索了12个数据库,涵盖医学、伦理和技术学科。审议了以英语、法语、德语或荷兰语出版的关于远程医疗、姑息治疗和伦理的出版物。由于缺乏论证型文献的标准,两名研究人员独立筛选出版物,使用同行评议作为质量代理。结果:共纳入26篇文献。出现了两种主要的伦理方法:一种与生物医学伦理的四项原则有关,另一种与护理有关。在尊重自主权方面,临终关怀既可以促进自主权,也可以限制自主权,这引起了对知情同意、隐私和保密的关注。关于慈善,潜在的改善症状管理和生活质量被确定。关于非恶意行为,强调了替代亲自照料和医疗化家庭环境等风险。关于正义,讨论了获取、公平、分配正义和环境问题。对医患关系和整体护理的关注是护理相关争论的核心。结论:远程医疗的好处挑战了其与姑息治疗的不兼容性,然而,重大风险威胁到核心姑息治疗的价值。因此,谨慎的实施必须优先考虑道德因素。
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 Medicine
Palliative Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
125
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Palliative Medicine is a highly ranked, peer reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to improving knowledge and clinical practice in the palliative care of patients with far advanced disease. This outstanding journal features editorials, original papers, review articles, case reports, correspondence and book reviews. Essential reading for all members of the palliative care team. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信