Title |
Is the content of guidelines/pathways a barrier for the integration of palliative Care in Chronic Heart Failure (CHF) and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD)? A comparison with the case of cancer in Europe
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Palliative Care, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12904-017-0243-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Naouma Siouta, Karen Van Beek, Sheila Payne, Lukas Radbruch, Nancy Preston, Jeroen Hasselaar, Carlos Centeno, Johan Menten |
Abstract |
There is a notable inequity in access to palliative care (PC) services between cancer and Chronic Heart Failure (CHF)/Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients which also translates into discrepancies in the level of integration of PC. By cross-examining the levels of PC integration in published guidelines/pathways for CHF/COPD and cancer in Europe, this study examines whether these discrepancies may be attributed to the content of the guidelines. A quantitative evaluation was made between integrated PC in published guidelines for cancer and CHF/COPD in Europe. The content of integrated PC in guidelines/pathways was measured using an 11 point integrated PC criteria tool (IPC criteria). A statistical analysis was carried out to detect similarities and differences in the level of integrated PC between the two groups. The levels of integration between CHF/COPD and cancer guidelines/pathways have been shown to be statistically similar. Moreover, the quality of evidence utilized and the date of development of the guidelines/pathways appear not to impact upon the PC integration in the guidelines. In Europe, the empirically observed imbalance in integration of PC for patients with cancer and CHF/COPD may only partially be attributed to the content of the guidelines/pathways that are utilized for the PC implementation. Given the similarities detected between cancer and CHF/COPD, other barriers appear to play a more prominent role. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 7 | 39% |
Mexico | 1 | 6% |
United States | 1 | 6% |
Ireland | 1 | 6% |
Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
Japan | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
Scientists | 7 | 39% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 17 | 23% |
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
Researcher | 6 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
Other | 10 | 14% |
Unknown | 19 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 24% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 23% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
Psychology | 3 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
Other | 5 | 7% |
Unknown | 24 | 32% |