慢性阻塞性肺病患者、护理人员和卫生专业人员临终关怀服务的经验:定性研究的解释性综合。

Amanda Landers, Johanna Margaretha de Koning Gans, Suzanne Pitama, Suetonia Palmer, Lutz Beckert
{"title":"慢性阻塞性肺病患者、护理人员和卫生专业人员临终关怀服务的经验:定性研究的解释性综合。","authors":"Amanda Landers,&nbsp;Johanna Margaretha de Koning Gans,&nbsp;Suzanne Pitama,&nbsp;Suetonia Palmer,&nbsp;Lutz Beckert","doi":"10.1136/ihj-2021-000121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this systematic literature review is to identify patients', carers' and health professionals' reported perspectives of end-of-life care services for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) and explore whether services are person-centred and integrated according to WHO definitions. The systematic review was qualitative with interpretive synthesis. The data sources included MEDLINE, CINAHL, Emcare, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Joanna Briggs Institute and PsycINFO databases from inception to 23 May 2022 limited to the English language. Qualitative studies were eligible if they reported open-ended patients,' carers' or healthcare professionals' experiences of end-of-life care for severe COPD. Qualitative data were categorised according to healthcare stakeholder groups and conceptualised within a health services network using the Actor-Network Theory. Eighty-seven studies proved eligible. Eleven stakeholder groups constituted the healthcare services network for severe COPD (in order of frequency of interactions with other stakeholders): secondary care, primary care, community services, acute care, palliative care, carer, healthcare environment, patient, government, social supports and research. When evaluating the network for evidence of patient-centred care, patients and carers received input from all stakeholder groups. The relationship between stakeholder groups and patients was largely unidirectional (stakeholders towards patients) with low influence of patients towards all stakeholder groups. There was limited interaction between specific healthcare services, suggesting low network integration. Government services, research and social supports had few connections with other services in the healthcare network. Multiple intersecting health, community and government services acted on patients, rather than providing patient-informed care. Health services provided poorly integrated services for end-of-life care for severe COPD. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020168733.</p>","PeriodicalId":73393,"journal":{"name":"Integrated healthcare journal","volume":"4 1","pages":"e000121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ff/66/ihj-2021-000121.PMC10241035.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient, carer and health professional experiences of end-of-life care services in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an interpretive synthesis of qualitative studies.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Landers,&nbsp;Johanna Margaretha de Koning Gans,&nbsp;Suzanne Pitama,&nbsp;Suetonia Palmer,&nbsp;Lutz Beckert\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/ihj-2021-000121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of this systematic literature review is to identify patients', carers' and health professionals' reported perspectives of end-of-life care services for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) and explore whether services are person-centred and integrated according to WHO definitions. The systematic review was qualitative with interpretive synthesis. The data sources included MEDLINE, CINAHL, Emcare, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Joanna Briggs Institute and PsycINFO databases from inception to 23 May 2022 limited to the English language. Qualitative studies were eligible if they reported open-ended patients,' carers' or healthcare professionals' experiences of end-of-life care for severe COPD. Qualitative data were categorised according to healthcare stakeholder groups and conceptualised within a health services network using the Actor-Network Theory. Eighty-seven studies proved eligible. Eleven stakeholder groups constituted the healthcare services network for severe COPD (in order of frequency of interactions with other stakeholders): secondary care, primary care, community services, acute care, palliative care, carer, healthcare environment, patient, government, social supports and research. When evaluating the network for evidence of patient-centred care, patients and carers received input from all stakeholder groups. The relationship between stakeholder groups and patients was largely unidirectional (stakeholders towards patients) with low influence of patients towards all stakeholder groups. There was limited interaction between specific healthcare services, suggesting low network integration. Government services, research and social supports had few connections with other services in the healthcare network. Multiple intersecting health, community and government services acted on patients, rather than providing patient-informed care. Health services provided poorly integrated services for end-of-life care for severe COPD. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020168733.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrated healthcare journal\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"e000121\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ff/66/ihj-2021-000121.PMC10241035.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrated healthcare journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/ihj-2021-000121\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated healthcare journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ihj-2021-000121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本系统文献综述的目的是确定患者、护理人员和卫生专业人员报告的严重慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)临终关怀服务的观点,并探讨服务是否按照世卫组织的定义以人为中心和综合。系统评价为定性评价,采用解释性综合评价。数据来源包括MEDLINE, CINAHL, Emcare, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Joanna Briggs Institute和PsycINFO数据库,从开始到2022年5月23日仅限于英语。定性研究如果报告了开放式患者、“护理人员”或医疗保健专业人员对严重慢性阻塞性肺病的临终护理经历,则符合条件。定性数据根据医疗保健利益相关者群体进行分类,并在使用行动者网络理论的卫生服务网络中概念化。87项研究证明符合条件。11个利益攸关方团体组成了严重慢性阻塞性肺病的保健服务网络(按与其他利益攸关方互动的频率排序):二级保健、初级保健、社区服务、急性护理、姑息治疗、护理人员、保健环境、患者、政府、社会支持和研究。在评估以患者为中心的护理证据网络时,患者和护理人员收到了来自所有利益相关者群体的意见。利益相关者群体与患者之间的关系在很大程度上是单向的(利益相关者对患者),患者对所有利益相关者群体的影响都很低。特定医疗保健服务之间的互动有限,表明网络整合程度较低。政府服务、研究和社会支助与保健网络中的其他服务几乎没有联系。多个交叉的卫生、社区和政府服务部门针对的是患者,而不是提供了解患者情况的护理。卫生服务部门为严重慢性阻塞性肺病的临终关怀提供的综合服务很差。普洛斯彼罗注册号CRD42020168733。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Patient, carer and health professional experiences of end-of-life care services in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an interpretive synthesis of qualitative studies.

Patient, carer and health professional experiences of end-of-life care services in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an interpretive synthesis of qualitative studies.

Patient, carer and health professional experiences of end-of-life care services in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an interpretive synthesis of qualitative studies.

Patient, carer and health professional experiences of end-of-life care services in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an interpretive synthesis of qualitative studies.

The objective of this systematic literature review is to identify patients', carers' and health professionals' reported perspectives of end-of-life care services for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) and explore whether services are person-centred and integrated according to WHO definitions. The systematic review was qualitative with interpretive synthesis. The data sources included MEDLINE, CINAHL, Emcare, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Joanna Briggs Institute and PsycINFO databases from inception to 23 May 2022 limited to the English language. Qualitative studies were eligible if they reported open-ended patients,' carers' or healthcare professionals' experiences of end-of-life care for severe COPD. Qualitative data were categorised according to healthcare stakeholder groups and conceptualised within a health services network using the Actor-Network Theory. Eighty-seven studies proved eligible. Eleven stakeholder groups constituted the healthcare services network for severe COPD (in order of frequency of interactions with other stakeholders): secondary care, primary care, community services, acute care, palliative care, carer, healthcare environment, patient, government, social supports and research. When evaluating the network for evidence of patient-centred care, patients and carers received input from all stakeholder groups. The relationship between stakeholder groups and patients was largely unidirectional (stakeholders towards patients) with low influence of patients towards all stakeholder groups. There was limited interaction between specific healthcare services, suggesting low network integration. Government services, research and social supports had few connections with other services in the healthcare network. Multiple intersecting health, community and government services acted on patients, rather than providing patient-informed care. Health services provided poorly integrated services for end-of-life care for severe COPD. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020168733.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 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