Greta Ghizzardi, Giulia Maga, Alice Silvia Brera, Ilaria Milani, Sara Falbo, Monica Petralito, Stefano Terzoni, Maura Lusignani, Rosario Caruso
{"title":"家庭姑息治疗中非癌症患者非正式照护者的教育计划:范围回顾。","authors":"Greta Ghizzardi, Giulia Maga, Alice Silvia Brera, Ilaria Milani, Sara Falbo, Monica Petralito, Stefano Terzoni, Maura Lusignani, Rosario Caruso","doi":"10.1089/jpm.2024.0097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The literature available on the topic of education programs for noncancer patients' informal caregivers (ICs) is heterogeneous and fragmented in the setting of palliative care (PC). We conducted a scoping review (ScR) to map the literature on educational programs for ICs in home-based PC, considering the available reviews, qualitative studies, observational studies, studies of validation of measurement tools, uncontrolled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and feasibility studies. This ScR included 21 eligible records by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. The most common types of study designs were literature review (28%), qualitative research (24%), and experimental or quasiexperimental research (19%). A total of 57% of educational interventions or programs were mainly supplied by nurses, alone or with other health professionals; specifically, nurses mostly led supportive intervention (<i>n</i> = 2; 25%), education programs (<i>n</i> = 2; 25%), and app development. Different factors at the microsystem, macrosystem, mesosystem, and exosystem levels might help or hinder the implementation of IC education. Although ICs might more easily access online programs, accessibility and digital exclusion might represent significant barriers. Supportive interventions might positively affect family ICs' preparedness, competence, burden, care outcomes, and experiences related to their role; moreover, it might increase ICs' self-rated competence in all key areas: physical, emotional, psychological, social, informational, and spiritual. ICs can improve their knowledge, confidence, and attitudes toward PC. The literature summary might render the assistance more accessible to ICs to improve the quality of caregiving and nursing care linked to patient and caregiver outcomes. However, robust studies (e.g., randomized controlled trials) are still required to identify and establish the efficacy of each described intervention and, therefore, offer tailored approaches considering the diverse diseases and social and cultural characteristics of patients and ICs.</p>","PeriodicalId":16656,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Education Programs for Informal Caregivers of Noncancer Patients in Home-Based Palliative Care: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Greta Ghizzardi, Giulia Maga, Alice Silvia Brera, Ilaria Milani, Sara Falbo, Monica Petralito, Stefano Terzoni, Maura Lusignani, Rosario Caruso\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/jpm.2024.0097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The literature available on the topic of education programs for noncancer patients' informal caregivers (ICs) is heterogeneous and fragmented in the setting of palliative care (PC). We conducted a scoping review (ScR) to map the literature on educational programs for ICs in home-based PC, considering the available reviews, qualitative studies, observational studies, studies of validation of measurement tools, uncontrolled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and feasibility studies. This ScR included 21 eligible records by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. The most common types of study designs were literature review (28%), qualitative research (24%), and experimental or quasiexperimental research (19%). A total of 57% of educational interventions or programs were mainly supplied by nurses, alone or with other health professionals; specifically, nurses mostly led supportive intervention (<i>n</i> = 2; 25%), education programs (<i>n</i> = 2; 25%), and app development. Different factors at the microsystem, macrosystem, mesosystem, and exosystem levels might help or hinder the implementation of IC education. Although ICs might more easily access online programs, accessibility and digital exclusion might represent significant barriers. Supportive interventions might positively affect family ICs' preparedness, competence, burden, care outcomes, and experiences related to their role; moreover, it might increase ICs' self-rated competence in all key areas: physical, emotional, psychological, social, informational, and spiritual. ICs can improve their knowledge, confidence, and attitudes toward PC. The literature summary might render the assistance more accessible to ICs to improve the quality of caregiving and nursing care linked to patient and caregiver outcomes. However, robust studies (e.g., randomized controlled trials) are still required to identify and establish the efficacy of each described intervention and, therefore, offer tailored approaches considering the diverse diseases and social and cultural characteristics of patients and ICs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of palliative medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of palliative medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2024.0097\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2024.0097","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在姑息治疗(PC)的背景下,关于非癌症患者非正式照护者(ic)的教育计划主题的文献是异构的和碎片化的。我们进行了一项范围综述(ScR)来绘制关于家庭PC中集成电路教育计划的文献,考虑了现有的综述、定性研究、观察性研究、测量工具验证的研究、非对照试验、非随机对照试验和可行性研究。检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Scopus和CINAHL数据库,纳入21条符合条件的记录。最常见的研究设计类型是文献综述(28%)、定性研究(24%)和实验或准实验研究(19%)。总共57%的教育干预或方案主要由护士单独或与其他卫生专业人员一起提供;具体而言,护士主导的支持性干预最多(n = 2;25%),教育项目(n = 2;25%),以及应用开发。微系统、宏观系统、中系统和外系统等不同层次的因素可能有助于或阻碍集成电路教育的实施。虽然ic可能更容易获得在线课程,但可访问性和数字排斥可能是重大障碍。支持性干预可能会对家庭ic的准备、能力、负担、护理结果和与其角色相关的经历产生积极影响;此外,它可能会提高智能手机在所有关键领域的自我评估能力:身体、情感、心理、社交、信息和精神。ic可以提高他们的知识、信心和对PC的态度。文献总结可能会使ic更容易获得帮助,以提高与患者和护理人员结果相关的护理质量和护理。然而,仍然需要强有力的研究(例如,随机对照试验)来确定和确定所描述的每种干预措施的有效性,从而提供考虑到不同疾病以及患者和ic的社会和文化特征的量身定制的方法。
Education Programs for Informal Caregivers of Noncancer Patients in Home-Based Palliative Care: A Scoping Review.
The literature available on the topic of education programs for noncancer patients' informal caregivers (ICs) is heterogeneous and fragmented in the setting of palliative care (PC). We conducted a scoping review (ScR) to map the literature on educational programs for ICs in home-based PC, considering the available reviews, qualitative studies, observational studies, studies of validation of measurement tools, uncontrolled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and feasibility studies. This ScR included 21 eligible records by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. The most common types of study designs were literature review (28%), qualitative research (24%), and experimental or quasiexperimental research (19%). A total of 57% of educational interventions or programs were mainly supplied by nurses, alone or with other health professionals; specifically, nurses mostly led supportive intervention (n = 2; 25%), education programs (n = 2; 25%), and app development. Different factors at the microsystem, macrosystem, mesosystem, and exosystem levels might help or hinder the implementation of IC education. Although ICs might more easily access online programs, accessibility and digital exclusion might represent significant barriers. Supportive interventions might positively affect family ICs' preparedness, competence, burden, care outcomes, and experiences related to their role; moreover, it might increase ICs' self-rated competence in all key areas: physical, emotional, psychological, social, informational, and spiritual. ICs can improve their knowledge, confidence, and attitudes toward PC. The literature summary might render the assistance more accessible to ICs to improve the quality of caregiving and nursing care linked to patient and caregiver outcomes. However, robust studies (e.g., randomized controlled trials) are still required to identify and establish the efficacy of each described intervention and, therefore, offer tailored approaches considering the diverse diseases and social and cultural characteristics of patients and ICs.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Palliative Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed journal covering medical, psychosocial, policy, and legal issues in end-of-life care and relief of suffering for patients with intractable pain. The Journal presents essential information for professionals in hospice/palliative medicine, focusing on improving quality of life for patients and their families, and the latest developments in drug and non-drug treatments.
The companion biweekly eNewsletter, Briefings in Palliative Medicine, delivers the latest breaking news and information to keep clinicians and health care providers continuously updated.