姑息治疗研究的重点是否与其护理相匹配?A期刊内容分析2021-22

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
J. Abel, A. Kellehear, M. Garrido, E. Hodges, J. Sawyer, C. Peterson
{"title":"姑息治疗研究的重点是否与其护理相匹配?A期刊内容分析2021-22","authors":"J. Abel, A. Kellehear, M. Garrido, E. Hodges, J. Sawyer, C. Peterson","doi":"10.1080/09699260.2023.2256175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Most international definitions of palliative care in the worlds of policy and practice emphasize the ‘holistic’ dimensions of end-of-life experience and its care.Aim To discover whether the definitions of palliative care are reflected in the field’s research priorities.Design and Setting A content analysis of two research journals, one British and the other American, is described to provide a simple indicative answer to this question. The abstracts of 609 research papers drawn from these two journals between the years 2021–22 were examined thematically.Results The categories of physical alone, physical, and psychological, and psychological alone, when combined accounted for 69% of all research reports. The broader social aspects of care, outside of communication and advance care planning, were largely unaddressed. The social domain accounted for 29%, but 78% of this figure was about advance care planning and communication. Likewise, the role of spirituality, present in most of the definitions, was under researched and under reported. Even within this context, the results were disappointing. Spiritual care accounted for only 2% of reports.Conclusion Examination of research publications of two major palliative care research journals showed a significant overemphasis on symptom management and health service delivery assessments. This significant dearth of investigation in the major areas of social and spiritual domains is a call to action for researchers, grant making bodies, researchers, ethics committees, and journal editorial teams.","PeriodicalId":45106,"journal":{"name":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do palliative care research priorities match those for its care? A journals content analysis 2021–22\",\"authors\":\"J. Abel, A. Kellehear, M. Garrido, E. Hodges, J. Sawyer, C. Peterson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09699260.2023.2256175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Most international definitions of palliative care in the worlds of policy and practice emphasize the ‘holistic’ dimensions of end-of-life experience and its care.Aim To discover whether the definitions of palliative care are reflected in the field’s research priorities.Design and Setting A content analysis of two research journals, one British and the other American, is described to provide a simple indicative answer to this question. The abstracts of 609 research papers drawn from these two journals between the years 2021–22 were examined thematically.Results The categories of physical alone, physical, and psychological, and psychological alone, when combined accounted for 69% of all research reports. The broader social aspects of care, outside of communication and advance care planning, were largely unaddressed. The social domain accounted for 29%, but 78% of this figure was about advance care planning and communication. Likewise, the role of spirituality, present in most of the definitions, was under researched and under reported. Even within this context, the results were disappointing. Spiritual care accounted for only 2% of reports.Conclusion Examination of research publications of two major palliative care research journals showed a significant overemphasis on symptom management and health service delivery assessments. This significant dearth of investigation in the major areas of social and spiritual domains is a call to action for researchers, grant making bodies, researchers, ethics committees, and journal editorial teams.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09699260.2023.2256175\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09699260.2023.2256175","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: 1

摘要

在政策和实践领域,大多数国际上对姑息治疗的定义都强调临终体验及其护理的“整体”维度。目的了解姑息治疗的定义是否反映在该领域的研究重点中。设计和设置对两份研究期刊的内容分析,一个是英国的,另一个是美国的,描述为这个问题提供一个简单的指示性答案。本文对这两份期刊在2021 - 2022年间发表的609篇研究论文的摘要进行了主题分析。结果单独的生理、生理和心理以及单独的心理三种类型占所有研究报告的69%。在沟通和预先护理计划之外,护理的更广泛的社会方面基本上没有得到解决。社交领域占29%,但其中78%是关于提前护理计划和沟通。同样,在大多数定义中存在的灵性的作用也没有得到充分的研究和报道。即使在这种背景下,结果也令人失望。精神护理只占报告的2%。结论对两大姑息治疗研究期刊的研究出版物的检查显示,症状管理和卫生服务提供评估显着过度强调。在社会和精神领域的主要领域调查的严重缺乏是对研究人员、拨款机构、研究人员、伦理委员会和期刊编辑团队的行动呼吁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do palliative care research priorities match those for its care? A journals content analysis 2021–22
Background Most international definitions of palliative care in the worlds of policy and practice emphasize the ‘holistic’ dimensions of end-of-life experience and its care.Aim To discover whether the definitions of palliative care are reflected in the field’s research priorities.Design and Setting A content analysis of two research journals, one British and the other American, is described to provide a simple indicative answer to this question. The abstracts of 609 research papers drawn from these two journals between the years 2021–22 were examined thematically.Results The categories of physical alone, physical, and psychological, and psychological alone, when combined accounted for 69% of all research reports. The broader social aspects of care, outside of communication and advance care planning, were largely unaddressed. The social domain accounted for 29%, but 78% of this figure was about advance care planning and communication. Likewise, the role of spirituality, present in most of the definitions, was under researched and under reported. Even within this context, the results were disappointing. Spiritual care accounted for only 2% of reports.Conclusion Examination of research publications of two major palliative care research journals showed a significant overemphasis on symptom management and health service delivery assessments. This significant dearth of investigation in the major areas of social and spiritual domains is a call to action for researchers, grant making bodies, researchers, ethics committees, and journal editorial teams.
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
PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE
PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
24
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.
×
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