地理、宗教、宗教信仰和机构因素对全球危重病人临终关怀的影响:WELPICUS 研究。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Palliative Care Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-05 DOI:10.1177/08258597211002308
Charles L Sprung, Ann L Jennerich, Gavin M Joynt, Andrej Michalsen, J Randall Curtis, Linda S Efferen, Sara Leonard, Barbara Metnitz, Adam Mikstacki, Namrata Patil, Robert C McDermid, Philipp Metnitz, Richard A Mularski, Pierre Bulpa, Alexander Avidan
{"title":"地理、宗教、宗教信仰和机构因素对全球危重病人临终关怀的影响:WELPICUS 研究。","authors":"Charles L Sprung, Ann L Jennerich, Gavin M Joynt, Andrej Michalsen, J Randall Curtis, Linda S Efferen, Sara Leonard, Barbara Metnitz, Adam Mikstacki, Namrata Patil, Robert C McDermid, Philipp Metnitz, Richard A Mularski, Pierre Bulpa, Alexander Avidan","doi":"10.1177/08258597211002308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the association between provider religion and religiosity and consensus about end-of-life care and explore if geographical and institutional factors contribute to variability in practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a modified Delphi method 22 end-of-life issues consisting of 35 definitions and 46 statements were evaluated in 32 countries in North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia, Australia and South Africa. A multidisciplinary, expert group from specialties treating patients at the end-of-life within each participating institution assessed the association between 7 key statements and geography, religion, religiosity and institutional factors likely influencing the development of consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3049 participants, 1366 (45%) responded. Mean age of respondents was 45 ± 9 years and 55% were females. Following 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was obtained for 77 (95%) of 81 definitions and statements. There was a significant difference in responses across geographical regions. South African and North American respondents were more likely to encourage patients to write advance directives. Fewer Eastern European and Asian respondents agreed with withdrawing life-sustaining treatments without consent of patients or surrogates. While respondent's religion, years in practice or institution did not affect their agreement, religiosity, physician specialty and responsibility for end-of-life decisions did.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variability in agreement with key consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers, with provider-level variations related to differences in religiosity and specialty. Geography also plays a role in influencing some end-of-life practices. This information may help understanding ethical dilemmas and developing culturally sensitive end-of-life care strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51096,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"316-324"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Influence of Geography, Religion, Religiosity and Institutional Factors on Worldwide End-of-Life Care for the Critically Ill: The WELPICUS Study.\",\"authors\":\"Charles L Sprung, Ann L Jennerich, Gavin M Joynt, Andrej Michalsen, J Randall Curtis, Linda S Efferen, Sara Leonard, Barbara Metnitz, Adam Mikstacki, Namrata Patil, Robert C McDermid, Philipp Metnitz, Richard A Mularski, Pierre Bulpa, Alexander Avidan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08258597211002308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the association between provider religion and religiosity and consensus about end-of-life care and explore if geographical and institutional factors contribute to variability in practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a modified Delphi method 22 end-of-life issues consisting of 35 definitions and 46 statements were evaluated in 32 countries in North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia, Australia and South Africa. A multidisciplinary, expert group from specialties treating patients at the end-of-life within each participating institution assessed the association between 7 key statements and geography, religion, religiosity and institutional factors likely influencing the development of consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3049 participants, 1366 (45%) responded. Mean age of respondents was 45 ± 9 years and 55% were females. Following 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was obtained for 77 (95%) of 81 definitions and statements. There was a significant difference in responses across geographical regions. South African and North American respondents were more likely to encourage patients to write advance directives. Fewer Eastern European and Asian respondents agreed with withdrawing life-sustaining treatments without consent of patients or surrogates. While respondent's religion, years in practice or institution did not affect their agreement, religiosity, physician specialty and responsibility for end-of-life decisions did.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variability in agreement with key consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers, with provider-level variations related to differences in religiosity and specialty. Geography also plays a role in influencing some end-of-life practices. This information may help understanding ethical dilemmas and developing culturally sensitive end-of-life care strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Palliative Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"316-324\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Palliative Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08258597211002308\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/4/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08258597211002308","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估医疗服务提供者的宗教信仰与临终关怀共识之间的关联,并探讨地理和制度因素是否会导致实践中的差异:采用改良德尔菲法,对北美、南美、东欧、西欧、亚洲、澳大利亚和南非 32 个国家的 22 个生命末期问题(包括 35 个定义和 46 项声明)进行了评估。每个参与机构中负责治疗临终病人的多学科专家小组评估了 7 项关键声明与可能影响共识形成的地理、宗教、宗教信仰和机构因素之间的关联:在 3049 位参与者中,有 1366 位(45%)做出了回应。受访者的平均年龄为 45 ± 9 岁,55% 为女性。经过两轮德尔菲讨论,81 个定义和陈述中有 77 个(95%)达成了共识。不同地理区域的答复存在明显差异。南非和北美的受访者更倾向于鼓励患者书写预先医疗指示。较少的东欧和亚洲受访者同意在未经患者或代理人同意的情况下撤销维持生命的治疗。虽然受访者的宗教信仰、从业年限或机构并不影响他们的同意程度,但宗教信仰、医生专业和临终决定的责任却影响了他们的同意程度:结论:对临终关怀主要共识声明的同意程度的差异主要与医疗服务提供者之间的差异有关,医疗服务提供者层面的差异与宗教信仰和专业的差异有关。地理位置也会对某些临终关怀实践产生影响。这些信息可能有助于理解伦理困境和制定具有文化敏感性的临终关怀策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Influence of Geography, Religion, Religiosity and Institutional Factors on Worldwide End-of-Life Care for the Critically Ill: The WELPICUS Study.

Objective: To evaluate the association between provider religion and religiosity and consensus about end-of-life care and explore if geographical and institutional factors contribute to variability in practice.

Methods: Using a modified Delphi method 22 end-of-life issues consisting of 35 definitions and 46 statements were evaluated in 32 countries in North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia, Australia and South Africa. A multidisciplinary, expert group from specialties treating patients at the end-of-life within each participating institution assessed the association between 7 key statements and geography, religion, religiosity and institutional factors likely influencing the development of consensus.

Results: Of 3049 participants, 1366 (45%) responded. Mean age of respondents was 45 ± 9 years and 55% were females. Following 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was obtained for 77 (95%) of 81 definitions and statements. There was a significant difference in responses across geographical regions. South African and North American respondents were more likely to encourage patients to write advance directives. Fewer Eastern European and Asian respondents agreed with withdrawing life-sustaining treatments without consent of patients or surrogates. While respondent's religion, years in practice or institution did not affect their agreement, religiosity, physician specialty and responsibility for end-of-life decisions did.

Conclusions: Variability in agreement with key consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers, with provider-level variations related to differences in religiosity and specialty. Geography also plays a role in influencing some end-of-life practices. This information may help understanding ethical dilemmas and developing culturally sensitive end-of-life care strategies.

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
Journal of Palliative Care
Journal of Palliative Care 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Palliative Care is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, international and interdisciplinary forum for practical, critical thought on palliative care and palliative medicine. JPC publishes high-quality original research, opinion papers/commentaries, narrative and humanities works, case reports/case series, and reports on international activities and comparative palliative care.
×
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