A Systematic Review of International Palliative Care Research Priorities and a Thematic Synthesis of Findings

F. Hasson, Emma Nicholson, Deborah Muldrew, Sheila Payne, Sonja J McIlfatrick

Research output: Contribution to journalConference article

Abstract

Background: Increasing evidence contributing to the global research agenda for palliative care has been published on research priorities, however, to date there has been a lack of synthesis of this evidence featuring commonalities, differences and gaps.

Aim: To identify and synthesize global palliative care research priorities.

Design: A systematic review of research priorities in palliative care was undertaken and guided by the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Studies that elicited palliative care research priorities were eligible for inclusion.

Data Sources: Six databases were searched between 2008-2017 including CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, as well as grey literature. Eligibility criteria were applied and the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Tools were used to assess quality.

Results: The search strategy yielded 2288 unique citations, 51 full text articles were reviewed, and seven met the inclusion criteria. Seven priority areas were identified: Service Models, Continuity of Care; Training and Education; Inequality; Communication; Living well and independently; and Recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas.

Conclusion: Research priority setting activities in palliative care elicited a broad range of topics, however approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research and enhance dialogue in palliative care research. A more standardised approach for priority setting will allow for increased validity and comparability of findings from across palliative care settings.

Fingerprint

Palliative Care
Research
Caregivers
Literature
Continuity of Patient Care
Information Storage and Retrieval
PubMed
Communication
Databases
Education

Cite this

@article{345575e4840e4e0b94d3d23f8d6c7924,
title = "A Systematic Review of International Palliative Care Research Priorities and a Thematic Synthesis of Findings",
abstract = "Background: Increasing evidence contributing to the global research agenda for palliative care has been published on research priorities, however, to date there has been a lack of synthesis of this evidence featuring commonalities, differences and gaps.Aim: To identify and synthesize global palliative care research priorities.Design: A systematic review of research priorities in palliative care was undertaken and guided by the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Studies that elicited palliative care research priorities were eligible for inclusion.Data Sources: Six databases were searched between 2008-2017 including CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, as well as grey literature. Eligibility criteria were applied and the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Tools were used to assess quality.Results: The search strategy yielded 2288 unique citations, 51 full text articles were reviewed, and seven met the inclusion criteria. Seven priority areas were identified: Service Models, Continuity of Care; Training and Education; Inequality; Communication; Living well and independently; and Recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas.Conclusion: Research priority setting activities in palliative care elicited a broad range of topics, however approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research and enhance dialogue in palliative care research. A more standardised approach for priority setting will allow for increased validity and comparability of findings from across palliative care settings.",
author = "F. Hasson and Emma Nicholson and Deborah Muldrew and Sheila Payne and McIlfatrick, {Sonja J}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "21",
doi = "https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216319844405",
language = "English",
journal = "Palliative Medicine",
issn = "0269-2163",
number = "EAPC Abstracts",

}

A Systematic Review of International Palliative Care Research Priorities and a Thematic Synthesis of Findings. / Hasson, F.; Nicholson, Emma; Muldrew, Deborah; Payne, Sheila; McIlfatrick, Sonja J.

In: Palliative Medicine, No. EAPC Abstracts, 21.05.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalConference article

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Systematic Review of International Palliative Care Research Priorities and a Thematic Synthesis of Findings

AU - Hasson, F.

AU - Nicholson, Emma

AU - Muldrew, Deborah

AU - Payne, Sheila

AU - McIlfatrick, Sonja J

PY - 2019/5/21

Y1 - 2019/5/21

N2 - Background: Increasing evidence contributing to the global research agenda for palliative care has been published on research priorities, however, to date there has been a lack of synthesis of this evidence featuring commonalities, differences and gaps.Aim: To identify and synthesize global palliative care research priorities.Design: A systematic review of research priorities in palliative care was undertaken and guided by the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Studies that elicited palliative care research priorities were eligible for inclusion.Data Sources: Six databases were searched between 2008-2017 including CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, as well as grey literature. Eligibility criteria were applied and the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Tools were used to assess quality.Results: The search strategy yielded 2288 unique citations, 51 full text articles were reviewed, and seven met the inclusion criteria. Seven priority areas were identified: Service Models, Continuity of Care; Training and Education; Inequality; Communication; Living well and independently; and Recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas.Conclusion: Research priority setting activities in palliative care elicited a broad range of topics, however approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research and enhance dialogue in palliative care research. A more standardised approach for priority setting will allow for increased validity and comparability of findings from across palliative care settings.

AB - Background: Increasing evidence contributing to the global research agenda for palliative care has been published on research priorities, however, to date there has been a lack of synthesis of this evidence featuring commonalities, differences and gaps.Aim: To identify and synthesize global palliative care research priorities.Design: A systematic review of research priorities in palliative care was undertaken and guided by the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Studies that elicited palliative care research priorities were eligible for inclusion.Data Sources: Six databases were searched between 2008-2017 including CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, as well as grey literature. Eligibility criteria were applied and the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Tools were used to assess quality.Results: The search strategy yielded 2288 unique citations, 51 full text articles were reviewed, and seven met the inclusion criteria. Seven priority areas were identified: Service Models, Continuity of Care; Training and Education; Inequality; Communication; Living well and independently; and Recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas.Conclusion: Research priority setting activities in palliative care elicited a broad range of topics, however approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research and enhance dialogue in palliative care research. A more standardised approach for priority setting will allow for increased validity and comparability of findings from across palliative care settings.

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216319844405

DO - https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216319844405

M3 - Conference article

JO - Palliative Medicine

T2 - Palliative Medicine

JF - Palliative Medicine

SN - 0269-2163

IS - EAPC Abstracts

ER -