Emilie Couchman, S. Ejegi-Memeh, S. Mitchell, C. Gardiner
{"title":"Facilitators of and barriers to continuity with GPs in primary palliative cancer care: A mixed-methods systematic review","authors":"Emilie Couchman, S. Ejegi-Memeh, S. Mitchell, C. Gardiner","doi":"10.1080/09699260.2022.2074126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: General practitioners (GPs) have a key role in palliative care provision for patients with advanced cancer. Continuity is valued by patients with such needs but is limited within current primary care systems. Exploration of the facilitators of and barriers to continuity in this complex context is required. Aim: To identify facilitators of and barriers to continuity with GPs in primary palliative care among people with advanced cancer and/or their close persons. Design: Mixed-methods systematic review with content and thematic analyses. Data sources: Keyword searches were carried out in five databases (Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE(R), CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane), policy documents and grey literature search engines in December 2020. Evidence was reviewed using relevant quality appraisal tools; data were extracted and tabulated. Findings were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and the review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Results: Seventeen studies were included. Six studies originated from the UK; six from Europe; three from Canada; and two from Australia. Two studies were mixed-methods, four presented quantitative data, and 11 papers reported on qualitative studies. Four themes were developed: (1) the role of GPs in facilitating continuity; (2) the role of patients and/or close persons in facilitating continuity; (3) changing needs throughout the disease trajectory; and (4) the organisational context in primary care. Conclusions: Facilitators of and barriers to continuity in primary palliative care are outlined. Further research is required to explore how patients and/or their close persons experience continuity in primary palliative care. Specifically, the work required of them to achieve their desired level of continuity, and their capacity for action in this context, needs further attention.","PeriodicalId":45106,"journal":{"name":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09699260.2022.2074126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: General practitioners (GPs) have a key role in palliative care provision for patients with advanced cancer. Continuity is valued by patients with such needs but is limited within current primary care systems. Exploration of the facilitators of and barriers to continuity in this complex context is required. Aim: To identify facilitators of and barriers to continuity with GPs in primary palliative care among people with advanced cancer and/or their close persons. Design: Mixed-methods systematic review with content and thematic analyses. Data sources: Keyword searches were carried out in five databases (Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE(R), CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane), policy documents and grey literature search engines in December 2020. Evidence was reviewed using relevant quality appraisal tools; data were extracted and tabulated. Findings were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and the review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Results: Seventeen studies were included. Six studies originated from the UK; six from Europe; three from Canada; and two from Australia. Two studies were mixed-methods, four presented quantitative data, and 11 papers reported on qualitative studies. Four themes were developed: (1) the role of GPs in facilitating continuity; (2) the role of patients and/or close persons in facilitating continuity; (3) changing needs throughout the disease trajectory; and (4) the organisational context in primary care. Conclusions: Facilitators of and barriers to continuity in primary palliative care are outlined. Further research is required to explore how patients and/or their close persons experience continuity in primary palliative care. Specifically, the work required of them to achieve their desired level of continuity, and their capacity for action in this context, needs further attention.
期刊介绍:
Progress in Palliative Care is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal with an international perspective. It provides a central point of reference for all members of the palliative care community: medical consultants, nurses, hospital support teams, home care teams, hospice directors and administrators, pain centre staff, social workers, chaplains, counsellors, information staff, paramedical staff and self-help groups. The emphasis of the journal is on the rapid exchange of information amongst those working in palliative care. Progress in Palliative Care embraces all aspects of the management of the problems of end-stage disease.