Louise Brereton1,2, Joseph Clark1,3, Christine Ingleton4, Clare Gardiner4, Louise Preston1, Tony Ryan4, Elizabeth Goyder1. 1. 1 School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 2. 2 College of Social Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK. 3. 3 Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK. 4. 4 School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A wide range of organisational models of palliative care exist. However, decision makers need more information about which models are likely to be most effective in different settings and for different patient groups. AIM: To identify the existing range of models of palliative care that have been evaluated, what is already known and what further information is essential if the most effective and cost-effective models are to be identified and replicated more widely. DESIGN: A review of systematic and narrative reviews according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews) tool. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ASSIA were searched for reviews about models of service provision from 2000 to 2014 and supplemented with Google searches of the grey literature. RESULTS: Much of the evidence relates to home-based palliative care, although some models are delivered across care settings. Reviews report several potential advantages and few disadvantages of models of palliative care delivery. However, under-reporting of the components of intervention and comparator models are major barriers to the evaluation and implementation of models of palliative care. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of setting or patient characteristics, models of palliative care appear to show benefits and some models of palliative care may reduce total healthcare costs. However, much more detailed and systematic reporting of components and agreement about outcome measures is essential in order to understand the key components and successfully replicate effective organisational models.
BACKGROUND: A wide range of organisational models of palliative care exist. However, decision makers need more information about which models are likely to be most effective in different settings and for different patient groups. AIM: To identify the existing range of models of palliative care that have been evaluated, what is already known and what further information is essential if the most effective and cost-effective models are to be identified and replicated more widely. DESIGN: A review of systematic and narrative reviews according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews) tool. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ASSIA were searched for reviews about models of service provision from 2000 to 2014 and supplemented with Google searches of the grey literature. RESULTS: Much of the evidence relates to home-based palliative care, although some models are delivered across care settings. Reviews report several potential advantages and few disadvantages of models of palliative care delivery. However, under-reporting of the components of intervention and comparator models are major barriers to the evaluation and implementation of models of palliative care. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of setting or patient characteristics, models of palliative care appear to show benefits and some models of palliative care may reduce total healthcare costs. However, much more detailed and systematic reporting of components and agreement about outcome measures is essential in order to understand the key components and successfully replicate effective organisational models.
Authors: Kieran L Quinn; Mohammed Shurrab; Kevin Gitau; Dio Kavalieratos; Sarina R Isenberg; Nathan M Stall; Therese A Stukel; Russell Goldman; Daphne Horn; Peter Cram; Allan S Detsky; Chaim M Bell Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael Hoerger; Joseph A Greer; Vicki A Jackson; Elyse R Park; William F Pirl; Areej El-Jawahri; Emily R Gallagher; Teresa Hagan; Juliet Jacobsen; Laura M Perry; Jennifer S Temel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Catriona R Mayland; Kate Ingarfield; Simon N Rogers; Paola Dey; Steven Thomas; Andrea Waylen; Sam D Leary; Miranda Pring; Katrina Hurley; Tim Waterboer; Michael Pawlita; Andy R Ness Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Kieran L Quinn; Amy T Hsu; Glenys Smith; Nathan Stall; Allan S Detsky; Dio Kavalieratos; Douglas S Lee; Chaim M Bell; Peter Tanuseputro Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 5.501